Understanding the impact of denial of service attacks on virtual machines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Virtualization, which allows multiple Virtual Machines (VMs) to reside on a single physical machine, has become an indispensable technology for today's IT infrastructure. It is known that the overhead for virtualization affects system performance; yet it remains largely unknown whether VMs are more vulnerable to networked Denial of Service (DoS) attacks than conventional physical machines. A clear understanding here is obviously critical to such networked virtualization system as cloud computing platforms. In this paper, we present an initial study on the performance of modern virtualization solutions under DoS attacks. We experiment with the full spectrum of modern virtualization techniques, from paravirtualization, hardware virtualization, to container virtualization, with a comprehensive set of benchmarks. Our results reveal severe vulnerability of modern virtualization: even with relatively light attacks, the file system and memory access performance of VMs degrades at a much higher rate than their non-virtualized counterparts, and this is particularly true for hypervisor-based solutions. We further examine the root causes, with the goal of enhancing the robustness and security of these virtualization systems. Inspired by the findings, we implement a practical modification to the VirtIO drivers in the Linux KVM package, which effectively mitigates the overhead of a DoS attack by up to 40%.
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 | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".