MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2548375783 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2016.7726673

RPsec: Managing routing protocol security

2016· article· en· W2548375783 on OpenAlexafffund
Nitin Prajapati, J. William Atwood

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIPv6, Mobility, Handover, Networks, Security
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceZone Routing ProtocolEnhanced Interior Gateway Routing ProtocolRouting protocolComputer networkCryptographic protocolProtocol (science)Routing (electronic design automation)Interior gateway protocolComputer securityWireless Routing ProtocolCryptographyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Internet routing infrastructure is an obvious target of attack, as compromised routers can be used to stage large scale attacks. While considerable progress has been made on validating the content of routing protocol messages, little use is made of procedures for protecting the path followed by the information exchanged between adjacent routers. When these procedures are used to protect the packets “on the wire”, the necessary parameters are installed manually, and then often left unchanged for five years or more, due to the high cost of making the changes, relative to the cost of the perceived threat. We propose a method for integrating the management of routing protocol security into existing configuration management systems. We outline the design of the data structures that will support automated management of the security relationships among routers, and have constructed YANG models for these data structures. We demonstrate how to manage the distribution of configuration data, using NETCONF and the YANG models. This will facilitate the development of automated key management protocols, which is a necessary first step to achieving higher routing protocol security at a reasonable cost.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.855

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIPv6, Mobility, Handover, Networks, SecurityFrench-language works237,207