MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2291042646 · doi:10.1109/icitst.2015.7412120

Automated security configuration checklist for a cisco IPsec VPN router using SCAP 1.2

2015· article· en· W2291042646 on OpenAlexaff
Gabriel Biedima Peterside, Pavol Zavarsky, Sergey Butakov

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsConcordia University of Edmonton
FundersNational Institute of Standards and Technology
KeywordsComputer scienceIPsecComputer securitySecurity serviceVendorAutomationProtocol (science)Computer networkInformation securityOperating systemThe InternetEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For large enterprises running many different operating systems, applications, and multi-vendor devices, the task of reviewing the security state of a broad range of devices and business areas in order to either comply with security requirements from regulations or detect risks such as misconfigured devices, out-of-date software, etc., is time-consuming, error-prone, and expensive. Although humans are important in the security assessment process, they are unable to keep up with the task, and may introduce inconsistencies which could further make organizations vulnerable to security breaches. Security automation provides a solution to this challenges. In this paper, a common security automation protocol, Security Content Automation Protocol (SCAP) version 1.2, was leveraged to develop an automated secure configuration checklist which can be used by security professionals to rapidly and consistently audit network edge devices such as a Cisco IPsec VPN router to ensure secure configuration per the baseline.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFrench-language works237,207