Conservative vs. optimistic parallelization of stateful network intrusion detection

Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming, PPOPP

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 138-139

  Schuff, Derek L ^a   Choe, Yung Ryn ^a   Pai, Vijay S ^a  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Parallelization; Snort

Indexed keywords

DATA TRANSFER;

PARALLELIZATION; STATEFUL NETWORKS;

INTRUSION DETECTION;

EID: 34748917566     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1229428.1229455     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (7)

1. F5 Networks. Securing the Enterprise Perimeter - Using F5's BIG-IP System to Provide Comprehensive Application and Network Security. White paper, Oct. 2004.
2. J. W. Haines, R. P. Lippmann, D. J. Fried, E. Tran, S. Boswell, and M. A. Zissman. 1999 DARPA Intrusion Detection System Evaluation: Design and Procedures. Technical Report 1062, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, 200.1.
3. Radware Inc. FireProof Security Activation. White paper, Sept. 2004.
4. M. Roesch. Snort - Lightweight Intrusion Detection for Networks. In Proceedings of the 13th USENLX Confermce on System Administration, pages 229-238, 1999.
5. L. Schaelicke, K. Wheeler, and C. Freeland. SPANIDS: A Scalable Network Intrusion Detection Loadbalancer. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Computing Fmntiers, pages 315-322, 2005.
6. D. L. Schuff, Y. R. Choe, and V. S. Pai. Conservative vs. optimistic parallelization. of stateful network intrusion detection. Technical report, Purdue University, 2007.
7. Shmoo Group. Defcon 9 Capture the Flag Data, Sept. 2001.