Deep learning approach to security enforcement in cloud workflow orchestration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supporting security and data privacy in cloud workflows has attracted significant research attention. For example, private patients' data managed by a workflow deployed on the cloud need to be protected, and communication of such data across multiple stakeholders should also be secured. In general, security threats in cloud environments have been studied extensively. Such threats include data breaches, data loss, denial of service, service rejection, and malicious insiders generated from issues such as multi-tenancy, loss of control over data and trust. Supporting the security of a cloud workflow deployed and executed over a dynamic environment, across different platforms, involving different stakeholders, and dynamic data is a difficult task and is the sole responsibility of cloud providers. Therefore, in this paper, we propose an architecture and a formal model for security enforcement in cloud workflow orchestration. The proposed architecture emphasizes monitoring cloud resources, workflow tasks, and the data to detect and predict anomalies in cloud workflow orchestration using a multi-modal approach that combines deep learning, one class classification, and clustering. It also features an adaptation scheme to cope with anomalies and mitigate their effect on the workflow cloud performance. Our prediction model captures unsupervised static and dynamic features as well as reduces the data dimensionality, which leads to better characterization of various cloud workflow tasks, and thus provides better prediction of potential attacks. We conduct a set of experiments to evaluate the proposed anomaly detection, prediction, and adaptation schemes using a real COVID-19 dataset of patient health records. The results of the training and prediction experiments show high anomaly prediction accuracy in terms of precision, recall, and F1 scores. Other experimental results maintained a high execution performance of the cloud workflow after applying adaptation strategy to respond to some detected anomalies. The experiments demonstrate how the proposed architecture prevents unnecessary wastage of resources due to anomaly detection and prediction.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".