Validation and Correction of Large Security Policies: A Clustering and Access Log Based Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In big data environments with big number of users and high volume of data, we need to manage the corresponding huge number of security policies. Due to the distributed management of these policies, they may contain several anomalies, such as conflicts and redundancies, which may lead to both safety and availability problems. The distributed systems guided by such security policies produce a huge number of access logs. Due to potential security breaches, the access logs may show the presence of non-allowed accesses. This may also be a consequence of conflicting rules in the security policies. In this paper, we present an ongoing work on developing an environment for verifying and correcting security policies. To make the approach efficient, an access log is used as input to determine suspicious parts of the policy that should be considered. The approach is also made efficient by clustering the policy and the access log and considering separately the obtained clusters. The clustering technique and the use of access log significantly reduces the complexity of the suggested approach, making it scalable for large amounts of data.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".