MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235990625 · doi:10.1109/inm.2003.1194165

A case study of three open source security management tools

2003· article· en· W4235990625 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOpen Source Software Innovations
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFalse positive paradoxComputer scienceIntrusion detection systemOpen sourceFalse positive rateSet (abstract data type)True positive rateArgusConstant false alarm rateFalse positives and false negativesData miningOperating systemSoftwareArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three open source security management tools - Snort, Pakemon, and Argus $are benchmarked against the DARPA 1999 Intrusion Detection Evaluation Data Set. Performance is characterized using multiple performance metrics. Snort is found to have the best performance in terms of detection rate, however it creates more false positives than desired. The results show that different tools perform well under different attack categories; hence they can be run at the same time to increase the detection rate of attack instances.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOpen Source Software InnovationsFrench-language works237,207