37 lines
2.9 KiB
Markdown
37 lines
2.9 KiB
Markdown
# Miscelaneous
|
|
|
|
For ACM, the title should not be the same as for the conference paper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Explanation Additions
|
|
|
|
These are futher explanations of concepts that were only superficially presentedin the original paper.
|
|
|
|
## Multi-shot Classification
|
|
The system is designed to get the most out of one-shot training data. We explain in the discussion that there is a natural extension to multi-shot training data. However we don't provide much more explanation nor an evaluation of the performances.
|
|
|
|
* Explain in details how the algorithm work with multiple training samples per class. Explain that this is a competitive system where samples of the same class compete against each other but play for the same team. There may be a change to make on the computation of the threshold that should only consider distances between different classes (min of distance between two samples of different classes, this has a specific name in hierarchical clustering design).
|
|
* Provide an evaluation in the case where a pattern can have multiple modes.
|
|
|
|
## Time Efficiency & Parallelisation
|
|
In the discussion we say that the time efficiency of MAD, while not being properly evaluated, is good enougth to not be prohibitive. However this is a very hand-waving argument and a proper evaluation would be more convincing. We also say that the algorithm can be naturally paralelized. This is true but we do not provide more explanation.
|
|
|
|
* Do a proper time efficiency evaluation of the algorithm. This might be tricky but you took courses about that so figure it out.
|
|
* Provide a better explanation of the parallelisation of the algorithm. Provide a pseudo code on the same format as the main pseudo code in the paper, where the // sections are highlighted and explain. If // changes the time efficiency, provide a new evaluation for the // version.
|
|
|
|
# Novel Additions
|
|
|
|
These are additions that introduces completely new information that was no in the original paper.
|
|
|
|
## New Experiment and AC current
|
|
The main experiment of the QRS paper (Case Study 2) presented the detection of states for enforcing security rules.
|
|
This was great but limited to only one machine with one set of states/rules.
|
|
It would be interesting to add a new case study that illustrate the potential with other machines/scenarios.
|
|
|
|
* Perform an experiment similar to Case Study 2 but focusing on AC current and non-intrusive measurement of power.
|
|
* Equip a tower PC with a power clamp on the AC line and perform the same kind of security policy enforcement.
|
|
* This might be tricky because all 8 clamps are in use for the LV experiment. Figure it out...
|
|
* Perform a case study on a different device than a computer. It needs to be a machine with possible attacks and enougth different states to be interesting. Possible machines could be:
|
|
* WAP if there are more states than ON and OFF.
|
|
* Smart TV. Could identify getting into menues, playing of specific ports/peripherals, connection status etc. The policies would be related to usage state and not to attacks.
|