MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6912624080 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.5111966

Challenges Cybersecurity Architects Are Facing in a Cloud Computing Environment

2021· article· en· W6912624080 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Data Security Solutions
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCloud computingProvisioningCloud computing securitySoftware as a serviceService providerUtility computingService (business)Cloud testing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past decade, cloud computing has become an integral part of many companies’ business strategies and<br> IT architecture. Companies look to seek and adopt new business models, increase efficiency in handling massive amount of<br> data, handle fluctuations in computing workloads for customers and stakeholders, and gain a competitive advantage in<br> their industry. All these concepts have to be considered while also trying to deliver a product or service, and not disrupt<br> existing operations for the company. This paper will address the multilevel challenges and threats in cloud computing and<br> their potential solutions.<br> Cloud adoption has introduced the three types of cloud computing service models. The first is the Infrastructure as a<br> Service (IaaS) model, which is defined as an instant computing infrastructure that is provisioned and managed over the<br> internet. The second is the Platform as a Service (PaaS) model, in which companies essentially rent everything they need to<br> build an application and rely on the cloud provider for development tools, infrastructure, and operating systems. The third<br> is Software as a Service (SaaS) model, which is a software distribution model in which a cloud service provider will host<br> applications for customers and makes them available over the internet.<br> Many companies have developed a new approach called hybrid cloud computing. The growth of the hybrid cloud model<br> has allowed companies to use a mix of the three models with public and private clouds to create the best environment for<br> their company’s infrastructure. The top benefits of this approach include: Better security, Operating cost, improvements,<br> and Speed and agility increase.<br> A hybrid cloud model can eliminate or greatly reduce trade-offs and offer the best solutions for the company.<br> Implementation and management can still be challenging for a hybrid cloud model. Having different management tools for<br> a private or public cloud, introduces a fragmented IT infrastructure that strongly lacks interoperability and visibly for the<br> company.<br> Keywords-component; cybersecurity; cloud computing; hybrid cloud

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.011
Scholarly communication0.0230.025
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0070.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicCloud Data Security SolutionsFrench-language works237,207