Latest
Call for Papers: Vol. 42 closes 30 JuneNew: Quantum Security Summit registration openAxiom Standard 7042-2024 now ratifiedGrant cycle 2025 — $4.2M committedFellows election voting opens 15 JulyCall for Papers: Vol. 42 closes 30 JuneNew: Quantum Security Summit registration openAxiom Standard 7042-2024 now ratifiedGrant cycle 2025 — $4.2M committedFellows election voting opens 15 July
Digital Library

Research Archive

Search across 2.4 million peer-reviewed documents from journals, conferences, and standards.

Showing 2 of 2,418,902 results

Journal Article Subscription Cybersecurity

Adversarial Machine Learning Attacks on Network Intrusion Detection Systems: Threat Taxonomy, Evasion Techniques, and Robust Defense Architectures

Machine learning-based Network Intrusion Detection Systems (NIDS) have been widely adopted as a replacement for signature-based approaches, yet their vulnerability to adversarial perturbations -- inputs crafted to deceive the classifier while preserving malicious functionality -- represents a critical and underaddressed threat. This paper presents a comprehensive adversarial ML threat taxonomy for NIDS, categorizing attacks across four dimensions: perturbation scope (feature-space vs problem-space), attacker knowledge (white-box, grey-box, black-box), attack timing (training-time poisoning vs inference-time evasion), and adversarial goal (evasion, impersonation, denial of service against the detector). We implement and evaluate 14 adversarial attack strategies against six representative NIDS architectures -- including Random Forest, LSTM, and Transformer-based classifiers -- using the CICIDS2017 and NSL-KDD benchmark datasets supplemented by proprietary traffic captures from a financial institution. Problem-space attacks -- which modify actual network packets rather than feature vectors -- reduce NIDS detection rates by 34-71% depending on the classifier architecture. We evaluate five defense strategies: adversarial training, ensemble diversity, feature randomization, input preprocessing, and certified robustness bounds. Adversarial training combined with ensemble diversity achieves the best robustness profile but requires 3.4x the training compute of undefended baselines. We release a standardized adversarial NIDS evaluation framework to facilitate reproducible future research.

Adaobi Nwosu, Henrik Strand, Yuki Suzuki, Amina El-Amin· Oct 2016· 412 citations
Journal Article Subscription Software Engineering

Test Automation Maturity in Agile-DevOps Organizations: A Taxonomy of Testing Strategies and Their Impact on Deployment Confidence

Test automation is widely recognized as a prerequisite for continuous delivery, yet organizations adopting DevOps frequently encounter a plateau in testing effectiveness characterized by slow feedback cycles, brittle test suites, and low confidence in automated regression results. This paper presents a taxonomy of test automation strategies observed across 16 organizations at varying stages of DevOps maturity, derived from a mixed-methods study combining semi-structured interviews (n=91), pipeline artifact analysis, and a cross-sectional survey (n=376). We classify test automation approaches across four architectural layers — unit, integration, contract, and end-to-end — and evaluate their contribution to deployment confidence, defined as engineers` willingness to deploy to production without manual verification. Our analysis demonstrates that contract testing, particularly consumer-driven contract testing using tools such as Pact, delivers the highest improvement in deployment confidence per unit of maintenance cost in microservices environments. Organizations with mature contract testing practices reported 55% fewer production incidents attributable to interface regressions. We introduce the Test Automation Value Matrix (TAVM), which plots testing strategies against cost-of-maintenance and confidence contribution dimensions, enabling teams to prioritize testing investments. We also present a five-stage Test Automation Maturity Model (TAMM) and map the organizations in our study to its levels.

Amara Okafor, Jonas Lindgren, Satoshi Kobayashi, Elena Moreira· Oct 2016· 296 citations