• Home
  • Mathematics
  • Group Testing Theory in Network Security: An Advanced Solution (SpringerBriefs in Optimization)

Group Testing Theory in Network Security: An Advanced Solution (SpringerBriefs in Optimization)

By My T. Thai

Group trying out thought in community Security explores a brand new department of crew checking out idea with an program which boosts examine leads to community defense. This short offers new suggestions on a number of complicated community safety difficulties and mathematical frameworks according to the gang checking out idea, particularly denial-of-service and jamming assaults. a brand new software of workforce checking out, illustrated during this textual content, calls for extra theories, similar to dimension constraint workforce checking out and attached team checking out. integrated during this textual content is a bankruptcy dedicated to discussing open difficulties and suggesting new ideas for varied community defense difficulties. this article additionally exemplifies the relationship among mathematical techniques and functional purposes to team checking out idea in community protection. This paintings will entice a multidisciplinary viewers with pursuits in computing device communique networks, optimization, and engineering.

Show description

Quick preview of Group Testing Theory in Network Security: An Advanced Solution (SpringerBriefs in Optimization) PDF

Show sample text content

2 three. four three. 6 three. eight four. zero 2. zero noise diversity ratio α (a) 2. 2 2. four 2. 6 2. eight noise variety ratio α (b) Fig. three. eight Experimental effects through various the worth of α the entire rounds T tremendously. specifically, whilst m adjustments from to 1 as proven within the Fig. three. 5a, the final overall rounds drop swiftly. hence in actual fact the radio dimension can hugely gain the final attempt size of the detection strategy. functionality by way of the variety of nodes N. during this research, we examine the scalability of the proposed resolution. As proven in Fig.

An access M[i, j] = 1 iff the ith pool includes the jth merchandise; differently, M[i, j] = zero. Given this Mt×n matrix, a try results of those t swimming pools may be represented through a t-dimensional column vector V, referred to as the attempt consequence vector. V is a binary vector, during which 1-entry represents a good end result and zero- access represents a damaging one. a favorable end result shows that at the very least one confident merchandise exists inside this pool, while a adverse one signifies that all of the goods within the present pool are damaging. that's, if V[i] = zero then all goods in row i of M are strong; if V[i] = 1 then there exists at the very least one optimistic merchandise in row i.

Three. 2 challenge types and Preliminaries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . three. 2. 1 community version. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . three. 2. 2 easy Attacker version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . three. 2. three greatest Clique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . three. three Group-Testing-Based set off Node identity: Preprocessing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . three. three. 1 Node class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . three. three. 2 Jamming variety Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . three. four selecting set off Nodes set of rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . three. four. 1 Interference unfastened workforce trying out set of rules .

Frequency hopping or channel browsing, require over the top computational services on instant units. to beat the shortcomings, we current right here an interference loose group-testing dependent resolution through making a choice on the set off nodes, whose transmissions turn on any reactive jammers. The id of those set off nodes may help us to (1) rigorously layout a greater routing protocol via switching those nodes into purely receivers to prevent activating jammers and (2) find the jammers in accordance with the set off nodes, hence delivering another mechanism opposed to reactive jamming assaults.

2. 2 community procedure types. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 2. 1 DoS Attacker version . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 2. 2 Victim/Detection version. . . . . . . . . . . 2. three dimension Constraint crew checking out . . . . . . . . . . . 2. four Matrix building and Latency Analyses . . . 2. four. 1 Sequential Detection With Packing . . . 2. four. 2 Sequential Detection with no Packing . 2. four. three Partial Non-Adaptive Detection . . . . . 2. five Detection procedure Configuration . . . . . . . . . . 2. five. 1 approach evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. five. 2 Configuration information. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 6 Experimental research . . . . . . . . . . . .

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.71 of 5 – based on 31 votes