A Classification of Intrusion Detection Systems in the Cloud
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Security is one of the most prominent challenges that hinder the acceleration of cloud adoption. Intrusion detection systems (IDSs) can be used to increase the security level of cloud environments. Therefore, the effectiveness of the IDS is a crucial issue for cloud security. However, the cloud presents new challenges and requirements, including scalability and adaptability, which effective IDSs need to address. Choosing the right deployment architecture significantly impacts the effectiveness of IDSs in the cloud. Additionally, robust IDSs need novel detection techniques to keep up with modern sophisticated attacks that target cloud environments. Hence, it is important to understand the advantages and limitations of different IDSs and how the deployment choice in cloud environments impacts the IDSs' effectiveness. This paper presents a novel classification scheme of the state-of-the-art of intrusion detection approaches in the cloud. This classification sheds light on the existing approaches with respect to the following aspects: deployment architecture and detection technique. We first classify the existing approaches based on their deployment architectures. Then, we present a comparative analysis of these approaches with respect to the detection techniques. We also provide detailed analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of existing approaches. The classification and analysis will help in the selection of the proper deployment architectures and detection techniques of IDSs in cloud environments.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it