TDFA: Traceback-Based Defense against DDoS Flooding Attacks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks are one of the challenging network security problems to address. The existing defense mechanisms against DDoS attacks usually filter the attack traffic at the victim side. The problem is exacerbated when there are spoofed IP addresses in the attack packets. In this case, even if the attacking traffic can be filtered by the victim, the attacker may reach the goal of blocking the access to the victim by consuming the computing resources or by consuming a big portion of the bandwidth to the victim. This paper proposes a Trace back-based Defense against DDoS Flooding Attacks (TDFA) approach to counter this problem. TDFA consists of three main components: Detection, Trace back, and Traffic Control. In this approach, the goal is to place the packet filtering as close to the attack source as possible. In doing so, the traffic control component at the victim side aims to set up a limit on the packet forwarding rate to the victim. This mechanism effectively reduces the rate of forwarding the attack packets and therefore improves the throughput of the legitimate traffic. Our results based on real world data sets show that TDFA is effective to reduce the attack traffic and to defend the quality of service for the legitimate traffic.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".