MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058441594 · doi:10.1145/1533057.1533071

An integrated approach to detection of fast and slow scanning worms

2009· article· en· W2058441594 on OpenAlexaff
Frank Akujobi, Ioannis Lambadaris, Evangelos Kranakis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceIntrusion detection systemAnomaly detectionHeuristicsDetectorReal-time computingArtificial intelligenceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The propagation speed of fast scanning worms and the stealthy nature of slow scanning worms present unique challenges to intrusion detection. Typically, techniques optimized for detection of fast scanning worms fail to detect slow scanning worms, and vice versa. In practice, there is interest in developing an integrated approach to detecting both classes of worms. In this paper, we propose and analyze a unique integrated detection approach capable of detecting and identifying traffic flow(s) responsible for simultaneous fast and slow scanning malicious worm attacks. The approach uses a combination of evidence from distributed host-based anomaly detectors, a self-adapting profiler and Bayesian inference from network heuristics to detect intrusion activity due to both fast and slow scanning worms. We assume that the extreme nature of fast scanning worm epidemics make them well suited for extreme value theory and use sample mean excess function to determine appropriate thresholds for detection of such worms. Random scanning worm behavior is considered in analyzing the stochastic time intervals that affect behavior of the detection technique. Based on the analysis, a probability model for worm detection interval using the detection scheme was developed. Simulations are used to validate our assumptions and analysis.

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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFrench-language works237,207