Revisiting network scanning detection using sequential hypothesis testing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Network scanning is a common, effective technique to search for vulnerable Internet hosts and to explore the topology and trust relationships between hosts in a target network. Given that the purpose of scanning is to search for responsive hosts and network services, behavior‐based scanning detection techniques based on the state of inbound connection attempts remain effective against evasion. Many of today's network environments, however, feature a dynamic and transient nature with several network hosts and services added or stopped (either permanently or temporarily) over time. In this paper, working with recent network traces from two different environments, we re‐examine the Threshold Random Walk (TRW) scan detection algorithm, and we show that the number of false positives is proportional to the transiency of the offered services. To address the limitations found, we present a modified algorithm (Stateful Threshold Random Walk (STRW) algorithm) that utilizes active mapping of network services to take into account benign causes of failed connection attempts. The STRW algorithm eliminates a significant portion of TRW false positives (e.g., 29% and 77% in two datasets studied). Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it