MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151282236 · doi:10.1109/icc.2009.5198896

Design and Analysis of a Hierarchical IP Traceback System

2009· article· en· W2151282236 on OpenAlexaff
Abes Dabir, Ashraf Matrawy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIP tracebackComputer scienceRouterScalabilityComputer networkThe InternetRouting (electronic design automation)Fragmentation (computing)Distributed computingPath (computing)Denial-of-service attackOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present the detailed design and analysis of our solution to the IP traceback problem. We adopt (at the AS level) a path signature generation method which was proposed at the router level to primarily provide a means of filtering attack traffic. Our solution assumes a secure routing infrastructure to exchange authenticated messages in order to learn path signatures. We envision the local adoption of a separate, yet complementary, traditional traceback system at each AS. This solution is hierarchical in the sense that it works at the autonomous system (AS) level first then once a small list of possible source ASes is identified, those ASes are queried and traceback is performed within each AS to prune the list down to the actual source. Using simulation results we demonstrate that our solution is practical since it reduces - as a first step - the search space from the entire router space of the Internet to an AS-list that is only a very small fraction of all possible ASes. This combination is more scalable than doing a flat IP traceback on the entire router space of the Internet. We go on to propose a means of using more than 16 bits of the IP fragmentation fields which are traditionally used by various IP traceback systems. We present results based on using various sizes for the marking field, as well as varying number of total marks and different sizes for each mark.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFrench-language works237,207