CCSM: Building Cross-Cluster Security Models for Edge-Core Environments Involving Multiple Kubernetes Clusters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the emergence of 5G networks and their large scale applications such as IoT and autonomous vehicles, telecom operators are increasingly offloading the computation closer to customers (i.e., on the edge). Such edge-core environments usually involve multiple Kubernetes clusters potentially owned by different providers. Confidentiality concerns could prevent those providers from sharing data freely with each other, which makes it challenging to perform common security tasks such as security verification across different clusters. In this work, we propose a solution for building cross-cluster security models to enable various security analyses, while preserving confidentiality for each cluster. We design a six-step methodology to model both the cross-cluster communication and cross-cluster event dependency, and we apply those models to different security use cases. We implement our solution based on a 5G edge-core environment that involves multiple Kubernetes clusters, and our experimental results demonstrate its efficiency (e.g., less than 8 seconds of processing time for a model with 3,600 edges and nodes) and accuracy (e.g., more than 96% for cross-cluster event 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".