Intelligent On-Off Web Defacement Attacks and Random Monitoring-Based Detection Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent cyberattacks armed with various ICT (information and communication technology) techniques are becoming advanced, sophisticated and intelligent. In security research field and practice, it is a common and reasonable assumption that attackers are intelligent enough to discover security vulnerabilities of security defense mechanisms and thus avoid the defense systems’ detection and prevention activities. Web defacement attacks refer to a series of attacks that illegally modify web pages for malicious purposes, and are one of the serious ongoing cyber threats that occur globally. Detection methods against such attacks can be classified into either server-based approaches or client-based approaches, and there are pros and cons for each approach. From our extensive survey on existing client-based defense methods, we found a critical security vulnerability which can be exploited by intelligent attackers. In this paper, we report the security vulnerability in existing client-based detection methods with a fixed monitoring cycle and present novel intelligent on-off web defacement attacks exploiting such vulnerability. Next, we propose to use a random monitoring strategy as a promising countermeasure against such attacks, and design two random monitoring defense algorithms: (1) Uniform Random Monitoring Algorithm (URMA), and (2) Attack Damage-Based Random Monitoring Algorithm (ADRMA). In addition, we present extensive experiment results to validate our idea and show the detection performance of our random monitoring algorithms. According to our experiment results, our random monitoring detection algorithms can quickly detect various intelligent web defacement on-off attacks (AM1, AM2, and AM3), and thus do not allow huge attack damage in terms of the number of defaced slots when compared with an existing fixed periodic monitoring algorithm (FPMA).
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".