| J. McHugh, "Testing Intrusion Detection Systems: A Critique of the 1998. |
....between them. Ontologies, therefore, provide software systems with the ability to share a common understanding of the information at issue, in turn empowering the software system with a greater ability to reason over and analyze this information. As detailed by Allen, et al. 2] and McHugh [22], the taxonomic characterization of intrusive behavior has typically been from the attacker s point of view, each suggesting that alternative taxonomies need to be developed. Allen et al. state that intrusion detection is an immature discipline and has yet to establish a commonly accepted ....
John McHugh. Testing Intrusion Detection Systems: A Critique of the 1998.
....between them. Ontologies, therefore, provide software systems with the ability to share a common understanding of the information at issue, in turn empowering the software system with a greater ability to reason over and analyze this information. As detailed by Allen, et al. 1] and McHugh [24], the taxonomic characterization of intrusive behavior has typically been from the attacker s point of view, each suggesting that alternative taxonomies need to be developed. Allen et al. state that intrusion detection is an immature discipline and has yet to establish a commonly accepted ....
J. McHugh. Testing Intrusion Detection Systems: A Critique of the 1998.
....appears no one believes him. We add to this story additional bylines that the boy may not even recognize the wolf when the wolf actually appears or may spend all available time crying wolf. The vulnerability of network signature based IDS to high false positive rates has been well documented. [7,9] We go further to show how packets can be crafted to match attack signatures such that alarms on a target IDS can be conditioned or disabled and then exploited. We agree with the analysis contained in [1] that the limitation of IDS is not the ability to accurately detect misuse behavior but rather ....
McHugh, J. Testing Intrusion Detection Systems: A Critique of the
No context found.
J. McHugh, "Testing Intrusion Detection Systems: A Critique of the 1998.
No context found.
J. McHugh. Testing Intrusion Detection Systems: A Critique of the 1998.
No context found.
John McHugh. Testing intrusion detection systems: a critique of the 1998.
No context found.
J. McHugh. Testing Intrusion detection systems: A critique of the 1998.
No context found.
J. McHugh. Testing Intrusion Detection Systems: A Critique of the 1998.
No context found.
McHugh J., "Testing Intrusion Detection Systems: Critique of the 1998.
No context found.
J. McHugh. Testing intrusion detection systems: a critique of the 1998.
No context found.
J. McHugh. Testing Intrusion detection systems: A critique of the 1998.
No context found.
MCHUGH, J. Testing intrusion detection systems: a critique of the 1998.
No context found.
J. McHugh. Testing intrusion detection systems: A critique of the 1998.
No context found.
J. McHugh. Testing intrusion detection systems: A critique of the 1998.
No context found.
John McHugh. Testing Intrusion detection systems: A critique of the 1998.
No context found.
J. McHugh. Testing Intrusion Detection Systems: A Critique of the 1998.
No context found.
J. McHugh. Testing Intrusion Detection Systems: A Critique of the 1998.
No context found.
McHugh J., Testing intrusion detection systems: A critique of the
No context found.
J. McHugh. Testing intrusion detection systems: A critique of the 1998.
Online articles have much greater impact More about CiteSeer.IST Add search form to your site Submit documents Feedback
CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC