Tennison: A Distributed SDN Framework for Scalable Network Security
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the relative maturity of the Internet, the computer networks of today are still susceptible to attack. The necessary distributed nature of networks for wide area connectivity has traditionally led to high cost and complexity in designing and implementing secure networks. With the introduction of software-defined networks (SDNs) and network functions virtualization, there are opportunities for efficient network threat detection and protection. SDN's global view provides a means of monitoring and defense across the entire network. However, current SDN-based security systems are limited by a centralized framework that introduces significant control plane overhead, leading to the saturation of vital control links. In this paper, we introduce TENNISON, a novel distributed SDN security framework that combines the efficiency of SDN control and monitoring with the resilience and scalability of a distributed system. TENNISON offers effective and proportionate monitoring and remediation, compatibility with widely available networking hardware, support for legacy networks, and a modular and extensible distributed design. We demonstrate the effectiveness and capabilities of the TENNISON framework through the use of four attack scenarios. These highlight multiple levels of monitoring, rapid detection, and remediation, and provide a unique insight into the impact of multiple controllers on network attack detection at scale.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".