Joint Pricing and Security Investment in Cloud Security Service Market With User Interdependency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After several decades of development on cyber security techniques, one clear conclusion can be drawn: no cyber security solution can completely remove the risks faced by the users. In this regard, cyber-insurance has been introduced as a means to enable the users to alleviate the damage from the cyber threats by transferring the cyber risks to an insurer. In this article, we study a cloud security service market, which is composed of cloud users and cloud security service vendors (CSSVs). The CSSVs work as the insurers for selling the cloud security plan, which is consisted of cloud security service and cloud-insurance. The users in the cloud platform can purchase the cloud security plan from the CSSVs to secure their cloud service. If the cloud service is attacked and loss happens, the users will receive the claim from the CSSVs. To lower the successful attack probability, the CSSV has an incentive to invest in improving its cloud security service. Specifically, we model and study the cloud security service market in the framework of a two-stage Stackelberg game. On the upper stage, the CSSVs lead to decide on their own strategies, i.e., the price of the cloud security plan and the security investment to improve their offered cloud security service. On the lower stage, the users follow to decide on the purchase of the cloud security plan according to the price of the cloud security plan and the perceived cyber breach probability of the cloud security service. We analytically verify that the Stackelberg equilibrium exists and is unique. Extensive simulations have been conducted to evaluate the performance of the Stackelberg game. The performance evaluation shows some insightful results. For example, when the users have strong interdependency, the profits of the CSSVs become lower.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".