Evolving Risk Management Against Advanced Persistent Threats in Fog Computing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the capability of support mobile computing demand with small delay, fog computing has gained tremendous popularity. Nevertheless, its highly virtualized environment is vulnerable to cyber attacks such as emerging Advanced Persistent Threats attack. In this paper, we propose a novel approach of cyber risk management for the fog computing platform. Particularly, we adopt the cyber-insurance as a tool for neutralizing cyber risks from fog computing platform. We consider a fog computing platform containing a group of fog nodes. The platform is composed of three main entities, i.e., the fog computing provider, attacker, and cyber-insurer. The fog computing provider dynamically optimizes the allocation of its defense computing resources to improve the security of the fog computing platform. Meanwhile, the attacker dynamically adjusts the allocation of its attack resources to improve the probability of successful attack. Additionally, to prevent from the potential loss due to attacks, the provider also makes a dynamic decision on the purchases ratio of cyber-insurance from the cyber-insurer for each fog node. Thereafter, the cyber-insurer accordingly determines the premium of cyber-insurance for each fog node. In our formulated dynamic Stackelberg game, the attacker and provider act as the followers, and the cyber-insurer acts as the leader. In the lower level, we formulate an evolutionary subgame to analyze the provider's defense and cyber-insurance subscription strategies as well as the attacker's attack strategy. In the upper level, the cyber-insurer optimizes its premium determination strategy, taking into account the evolutionary equilibrium at the lower-level evolutionary subgame. We analytically prove that the evolutionary equilibrium is unique and stable. Moreover, we provide a series of insightful analytical and numerical results on the equilibrium of the dynamic Stackelberg game.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".