MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Detecting Denial of Service Attacks on SIP Based Services and Proposing Solutions

2011· book-chapter· en· W2495489052 on OpenAlexaff
Zoha Asgharian, Hassan Asgharian, Ahmad Akbari, Bijan Raahemi

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDenial-of-service attackSession Initiation ProtocolComputer scienceVoice over IPComputer networkNetwork packetQuality of serviceNext-generation networkIntrusion detection systemProtocol (science)Session (web analytics)ScalabilitySignaling protocolService (business)Computer securityServerThe InternetOperating systemWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the main goals of employing Next Generation Networks (NGN) is an integrated access to the multimedia services like Voice over IP (VoIP), and IPTV. The primary signaling protocol in these multimedia services is Session Initiation Protocol (SIP). This protocol, however, is vulnerable to attacks, which may impact the Quality of Service (QoS), which is an important feature in NGN. One of the most frequent attacks is Denial of Service (DoS) attack, which is generated easily, but its detection is not trivial. In this chapter, a framework is proposed to detect Denial of Service attacks and a few other forms of intrusions, and then we react accordingly. The proposed detection engine combines the specification- and anomaly-based intrusion detection techniques. The authors set up a test-bed and generate a labeled dataset. The traffic generated for the test-bed is composed of two types of SIP packets: attack and normal. They then record the detection rates and false alarms based on the labeled dataset. The experimental results demonstrate that the proposed approach can successfully detect intruders and limit their accesses. The results also confirm that the framework is scalable and robust.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.204 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFrench-language works237,207