MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6907361409 · doi:10.21227/p9pa-se07

Dataset of A Comprehensive Evaluation on the Resilience of QUIC Protocol Against Handshake Flooding Attacks

2025· dataset· en· W6907361409 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE DataPort · 2025
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHandshakeFlooding (psychology)Resilience (materials science)Protocol (science)Flood mythVulnerability (computing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dataset contains results and scripts from experiments evaluating the resilience of the QUIC protocol against handshake flooding attacks. It aims to support researchers and developers in analyzing handshake flooding attacks against the QUIC protocol, contributing to developing more robust mitigation strategies. The experiments utilize three prominent QUIC implementations: aioquic, quic-go, and picoquic, providing a comprehensive comparison of their resilience. Additionally, to benchmark the performance and resilience of QUIC, SYN flood attacks were conducted against TCP with SYN cookies. This dataset enables a deeper understanding of QUIC’s behaviour under stress conditions and offers valuable insights for researchers working on QUIC security and performance optimization.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE DataPortFrench-language works237,207