MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386157204 · doi:10.32920/24033972.v1

Detection and Mitigation of IP Spoofing and SYN Flooding DDoS Attacks in Cloud Computing

2023· preprint· en· W4386157204 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammed Arsalan Ali Khan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIP address spoofingDenial-of-service attackSpoofing attackComputer scienceFlooding (psychology)Cloud computingARP spoofingComputer securityComputer networkApplication layer DDoS attackIp addressNetwork securityThe InternetInternet ProtocolIP address managementOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Denial of Distributed Services (DDoS) is one of the significant threats to cloud computing. The attacker can affect the machine’s availability, and traditional defense strategies are difficult to apply to cloud computing due to their poor availability and high storage requirements. There are multiple different types of DDoS attacks such as IP Spoofing, SYN flooding, smurf, buffer overflow, ping of death, land and finally, teardrop attack. Among these, SYN Flooding and IP Spoofing are the most common and effective attacks these days. This thesis will focus on implementing a security algorithm to improve the two most common DDoS attacks in cloud computing. First, we will implement a simple detection mechanism using operating system fingerprinting for IP Spoofing and Confidence-Based Filtering pattern recognition with timestamp parameters for SYN Flooding attacks. After an attack is detected, a simple shared cloud-based database is updated for both legitimate connection and illegitimate connection for mitigation purposes. To mitigate an IP Spoof attack, source IP address filtering is used to allow only traffic with legitimate source IP addresses to access the network. For the purpose of mitigating SYN Flooding attacks, a prevention technique is used to classify the attack sources and discard traffic from such sources. In a secure cloud environment, we test our proposed algorithm and literature security methods for better comparison. The result shows that our proposed algorithm has counter literature methods drawbacks and allowed a more legitimate connection with less error.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFrench-language works237,207