Strategy-Aware Mitigation Using Markov Games for Dynamic Application-Layer Attacks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Targeted and destructive nature of strategies used by attackers to break down the system require mitigation approaches with dynamic awareness. In the domain of adaptive software security, the adaptation manager of a self-protecting software is responsible for selecting countermeasures to prevent or mitigate attacks immediately. Making a right decision in each and every situation is one of the most challenging aspects of engineering self-protecting software systems. Inspired by the game theory, in this research work, we model the interactions between the attacker and the adaptation manager as a two-player zero-sum Markov game. Using this game-theoretic approach, the adaptation manager can refine its strategies in dynamic attack scenarios by utilizing what has learned from the system's and adversary's actions. We also present how this approach can be fitted to the well-known MAPE-K architecture model. As a proof of concept, this research conducts a study on a case of dynamic application-layer denial of service attacks. The simulation results demonstrate how our approach performs while encountering different attack strategies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".