MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019532602 · doi:10.4018/ijats.2013070104

A Cooperative Intrusion Detection Model Based on Granular Computing and Agent Technologies

2013· article· en· W2019532602 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

VenueInternational Journal of Agent Technologies and Systems · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsNipissing University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntrusion detection systemComputer scienceHost (biology)Denial-of-service attackHost-based intrusion detection systemComputer securityDistributed computingIntrusionResource (disambiguation)Granular computingComputer networkIntrusion prevention systemData miningThe InternetOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper initially analyzes the methods of four attack types, including Probing, DoS (Denial of Service), R2L (Remote to Local) and U2R (User to Root). It then categorizes attacks into four cases which are, respectively, one host-one host, one host-many hosts, many hosts-one host and many hosts-many hosts. Categorization is based on resource and destination addresses of network packages. Granular computing methodology is then applied to intrusion detection. With the support of the granular computing methodology and agent technologies, a cooperative intrusion detection model is proposed. Furthermore, the construction for an intrusion detection agent is presented. Finally, experiments are conducted. Results indicate that the proposed method can detect slow scanning attacks which cannot be detected by a traditional scanning detector.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.225 · 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