An integrated approach to detection of fast and slow scanning worms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".