MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391941017 · doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2024.103851

Hardening of network segmentation using automated referential penetration testing

2024· article· en· W4391941017 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Network and Computer Applications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceSegmentationPenetration (warfare)Hardening (computing)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionComposite materialMaterials scienceOperations research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the problem of hardening the security of existing networks. Dynamic and static analysis are two main approaches that are used to address this problem. Dynamic analysis is performed using penetration testing. Penetration testing (short pentesting) simulates attacks on an existing and possibly dynamic network to identify its vulnerabilities without causing it any harm. Static analysis analyzes the access control policies of both network resources and firewalls without executing them. Although, dynamic and static analysis are extremely useful approaches, they also have several drawbacks. For instance, they do not identify vulnerabilities resulting from weak network segmentation, improper implementation of the Defence in Depth strategy, and an increased attack surface for a given resource or firewall. In this paper, we propose a novel approach termed as the referential penetration testing (RPT) approach to evaluate the security of networks. The RPT approach evaluates the network and checks for segmentation flaws, while checking for other traditional vulnerabilities. We then propose a novel framework, called the RPT framework, that incorporates the RPT approach to identify vulnerabilities in networks. The proposed framework is an application of the Digital Twin Technology in network security. We compare RPT to the network vulnerabilities assessment tools Nessus, OpenVAS, Qualys, Illumio, Tufin, and AlgoSec. The comparison reveals that RPT is different from the other tools on all the considered technical aspects, which indicates that it brings a novel approach to assess network segmentation. It has a very limited focus compared to the others, which makes it suitable for being used in combination with anyone of them to further enhance the robustness of the segmentation. Finally, we implement this framework in the Software Defined Network (SDN) environment and discuss its usefulness.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.265 · 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