MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2383773734 · doi:10.1109/rsp.2008.11

Flexible Software-Hardware Network Intrusion Detection System

2008· article· en· W2383773734 on OpenAlexafffund
Ryan Proudfoot, Kenneth B. Kent, Eric Aubanel, Nan Chen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Packet Processing and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersCMC Microsystems
KeywordsField-programmable gate arrayComputer scienceSoftwareEmbedded systemScalabilityNetwork packetComputer hardwareString searching algorithmIntrusion detection systemPacket processingProcess (computing)Real-time computingPattern matchingOperating systemComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Network intrusion detection system (NIDS) demands have been steadily increasing over the past few years. Current solutions using software become inefficient running on high speed high volume networks and will end up dropping packets. Hardware solutions are available and result in much higher efficiency but present problems such as flexibility and cost. Our proposed system uses a modified version of Snort, a robust widely deployed open-sourced NIDS. Snort spends a significant fraction of its processing time doing pattern matching. Our proposed system runs Snort in software until it gets to the pattern matching function and then off loads that processing to the field programmable gate array (FPGA). The hardware is able to process data at up to 1.7 GB/s on one Xilinx XC2VP100 FPGA. Our system is more flexible than other FPGA string matching designs in that the rules are not hard-coded. The design is scalable and allows FPGAs to be used in parallel to increase the processing speed even further.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Packet Processing and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207