MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2727212414 · doi:10.4018/ijcwt.2017070104

Advanced Network Data Analytics for Large-Scale DDoS Attack Detection

2017· article· en· W2727212414 on OpenAlexaff
Konstantinos F. Xylogiannopoulos, Panagiotis Karampelas, Reda Alhajj

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cyber Warfare and Terrorism · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDenial-of-service attackComputer scienceComputer securityLaptopThe InternetCloud computingNetwork securityNetworking hardwareComputer networkScale (ratio)BotnetAnomaly detectionData miningWorld Wide WebOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Internet-enabled devices or Internet of Things as it has been prevailed are increasing exponentially every day. The lack of security standards in the manufacturing of these devices along with the haste of the manufacturers to increase their market share in this area has created a very large network of vulnerable devices that can be easily recruited as bot members and used to initiate very large volumetric Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks. The significance of the problem can be easily acknowledged due to the large number of cases regarding attacks on institutions, enterprises and even countries which have been recently revealed. In the current paper a novel method is introduced, which is based on a data mining technique that can analyze incoming IP traffic details and early warn the network administrator about a potentially developing DDoS attack. The method can scale depending on the availability of the infrastructure from a conventional laptop computer to a complex cloud infrastructure. Based on the hardware configuration as it is proved with the experiments the method can easily monitor and detect abnormal network traffic of several Gbps in real time using the minimum hardware equipment.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

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 science0.0020.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Cyber Warfare and TerrorismSame topicNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFrench-language works237,207