Policy-Based Security Configuration Management, Application to Intrusion Detection and Prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intrusion detection and/or prevention systems (IDPS) represent an important line of defense against the variety of attacks that can compromise the security and well functioning of an enterprise information system. IDPSes can be network or host-based and can collaborate in order to provide better detections of malicious traffic. Although several IDPS systems have been proposed, their appropriate configuration and control for effective detection and prevention of attacks has always been far from trivial. Another concern is related to the slowing down of system performance when maximum security is applied, hence the need to trade off between security enforcement levels and the performance and usability of an enterprise information system. In this paper we motivate the need for and present a policy-based framework for the configuration and control of the security enforcement mechanisms of an enterprise information system. The approach is based on dynamic adaptation of security measures based on the assessment of system vulnerability and threat prediction and provides several levels of attack containment. As an application, we have implemented a dynamic policy-based adaptation mechanism between the Snort signature-based IDPS and the light weight anomaly-based FireCollaborator IDS. Experiments conducted over the DARPA 2000 and 1999 intrusion detection evaluation datasets show the viability of our framework.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".