Evaluating the Security and Economic Effects of Moving Target Defense Techniques on the Cloud
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Moving Target Defense (MTD) is a proactive security mechanism that changes the attack surface with the aim of confusing attackers. Cloud computing leverages MTD techniques to enhance the cloud security posture against cyber threats. While many MTD techniques have been applied to cloud computing, there has so far been no joint evaluation of the effectiveness of MTD techniques with respect to security and economic metrics. In this paper, we first introduce mathematical definitions for the combination of three MTD techniques: Shuffle, Diversity, and Redundancy. Then, we utilize four security metrics – namely, system risk, attack cost, return on attack, and reliability – to assess the effectiveness of the combined MTD techniques applied to large-scale cloud models. Second, we focus on a specific context based on a cloud model for e-health applications to evaluate the effectiveness of the MTD techniques using security and economic metrics. We introduce (1) a strategy to effectively deploy the Shuffle MTD technique using a virtual machine placement technique, and (2) two strategies to deploy the Diversity MTD technique through operating system diversification. As deploying the Diversity technique incurs costs, we formulate the optimal diversity assignment problem (O-DAP), and solve it as a binary linear programming model to obtain the assignment that maximizes the expected net benefit.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".