MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110524885 · doi:10.1109/pacrim.2011.6032941

A dynamic model building process for virtual network security assessment

2011· article· en· W2110524885 on OpenAlexaff
R. Goyette, A. Karmouch

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer securityFlexibility (engineering)Computer security modelService providerProcess (computing)Network securitySecurity serviceService (business)Information security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Network virtualization - in which network topologies and protocols are tailor-made for individual service providers across multiple infrastructure providers - is a concept that holds great promise for the future internet. However, security in the Virtual Network (VNet) context is difficult to assess and understand because service providers have no visibility into the infrastructure over which their networks operate which could be a significant concern from an adoption perspective. In a previous work, we introduced a VNet Security Assessment Process to address this challenge by building a security preference model based on the input of a group of security experts. However, a flexibility-limiting factor of the process is the requirement for security experts to meet each time a model change is required. In this paper, we introduce DS-MACBETH which combines Dempster-Shafer theory (DST) with the multi-criteria decision making process MACBETH (Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical Based Evaluation Technique). We combine DST with MACBETH in order to allow security experts to contribute to model building in an asynchronous, distributed fashion. We integrate DS-MACBETH into our previous VNet security assessment process to achieve a dynamic security model building process whose sources of knowledge can be expanded beyond human sources of security knowledge (e.g. sensors, expert systems, etc).

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFrench-language works237,207