Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39409453›Full record

ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024

A Survey of Advanced Border Gateway Protocol Attack Detection Techniques.

Ben A Scott, Michael N Johnstone, Patryk Szewczyk

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ben A ScottSchool of Science, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA 6027, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3209-2184
Michael N JohnstoneSchool of Science, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA 6027, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7192-7098
Patryk SzewczykSchool of Science, Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA 6027, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3040-9344

Funding

Department of Industry, Science and Resources GA158
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Internet's default inter-domain routing system, the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), remains insecure. Detection techniques are dominated by approaches that involve large numbers of features, parameters, domain-specific tuning, and training, often contributing to an unacceptable computational cost. Efforts to detect anomalous activity in the BGP have been almost exclusively focused on single observable monitoring points and Autonomous Systems (ASs). BGP attacks can exploit and evade these limitations. In this paper, we review and evaluate categories of BGP attacks based on their complexity. Previously identified next-generation BGP detection techniques remain incapable of detecting advanced attacks that exploit single observable detection approaches and those designed to evade public routing monitor infrastructures. Advanced BGP attack detection requires lightweight, rapid capabilities with the capacity to quantify group-level multi-viewpoint interactions, dynamics, and information. We term this approach advanced BGP anomaly detection. This survey evaluates 178 anomaly detection techniques and identifies which are candidates for advanced attack anomaly detection. Preliminary findings from an exploratory investigation of advanced BGP attack candidates are also reported.

Indexed as

anomaly detectionBGPcyber securityInternet securityrouting security

Identifiers

PMID39409453
PMCPMC11479385

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.