MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010588223 · doi:10.1109/iscc.2014.6912478

A formal framework for verifying inter-firewalls consistency

2014· article· en· W2010588223 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Packet Processing and Optimization
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFirewall (physics)Computer scienceConsistency (knowledge bases)Security policyFormal verificationApplication firewallDistributed computingModel checkingConsistency modelFormal methodsTheoretical computer scienceData consistencyComputer securityStateful firewallSoftware engineeringEntropy (arrow of time)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main problem of firewall configuration is to ensure the filtering rules consistency w.r.t. a global security policy. However, the overall firewalls configuration on a network, which requires a human intervention, is often an error-prone process. Therefore, automated solutions are needed in order to detect firewall configuration inconsistencies and to check the inter-firewalls consistency. In this paper, we propose a formal modeling and verification framework based on model checking. It allows to verify automatically the end-to-end security behavior of a set of firewalls w.r.t. a global security policy. To deal with state explosion problem, two abstractions are proposed and evaluated in term of space and time complexity, according to the network size and connectivity rate.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it