MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2281120889 · doi:10.1504/ijics.2015.073028

Application-layer denial of service attacks: taxonomy and survey

2015· article· en· W2281120889 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Information and Computer Security · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDenial-of-service attackComputer securityTerminologyTaxonomy (biology)Software deploymentApplication layerNetwork securityLayer (electronics)Network layerService layerWorld Wide WebThe InternetSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent escalation of application-layer denial of service (DoS) attacks has attracted a significant interest of the security research community. Since application-layer DoS attacks usually do not manifest themselves at the network level, they avoid traditional network-layer-based detection. Therefore, the security community has focused on specialised application-layer DoS attacks detection and mitigation mechanisms. However, the deployment of reliable and efficient defence mechanisms against these attacks requires the comprehensive understanding of the existing application-layer DoS attacks supported by a unified terminology. Thus, in this paper we address this issue and devise a taxonomy of application-layer DoS attacks. By devising the proposed taxonomy, we intend to give researchers a better understanding of these attacks and provide a foundation for organising research efforts within this specific field.

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 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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.228 · 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