A Retroactive-Burst Framework for Automated Intrusion Response System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to present an adaptive and cost-sensitive model to prevent security intrusions. In most automated intrusion response systems, response selection is performed locally based on current threat without using the knowledge of attacks history. Another challenge is that a group of responses are applied without any feedback mechanism to measure the response effect. We address these problems through retroactive-burst execution of responses and a Response Coordinator (RC) mechanism, the main contributions of this work. The retroactive-burst execution consists of several burst executions of responses with, at the end of each burst, a mechanism for measuring the effectiveness of the applied responses by the risk assessment component. The appropriate combination of responses must be considered for each burst execution to mitigate the progress of the attack without necessarily running the next round of responses, because of the impact on legitimate users. In the proposed model, there is a multilevel response mechanism. To indicate which level is appropriate to apply based on the retroactive-burst execution, we get help from a Response Coordinator mechanism. The applied responses can improve the health of Applications, Kernel, Local Services, Network Services, and Physical Status. Based on these indexes, the RC gives a general overview of an attacker’s goal in a distributed environment.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".