MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7043173380

An SCL-Based Constraint Representation Language for Intrusion Detection

2017· dissertation· en· W7043173380 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsConstraint (computer-aided design)Digital subscriber lineConstraint programmingFocus (optics)Representation (politics)Constraint graphContext (archaeology)Constraint logic programmingJavaDomain (mathematical analysis)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this thesis, we have extended the SCL (Structured and Context Language) network protocol description language to describe the complex constraints for the network engineer. Previous SCL developed with the focus of penetration testing and not sufficient for constraint scenarios. The constraint scenarios include multiple-packet with order and environmental information. To address the current limitation of the SCL, we have proposed syntaxes which are declarative in nature. We have studied three different styles of syntaxes to handle constraint scenarios of an IDS (Intrusion detection system). The three syntaxes are based on Java expressions, QUEL and Prolog. We have represented three constraints for command and control systems such as ATC (Air Traffic Control) network using our syntaxes. The same constraints have been previously used by a constraint engine to demonstrate the capability of the IDS. We evaluate each of the syntax based on the four design guidelines for the domain specific language (DSL). The Java-based syntax shows better capability to represent constraints based on four DSL design guidelines. Finally, we show the mapping of the constraints represented in our syntaxes with the low-level DSL (Domain Specific Language) of the constraint engine. The mapping shows our syntaxes has all relevant information to translate into the low-level DSL.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207