<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why Poissonian traffic models matter more now than ever, part 5</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.eqnets.com/2009/08/03/why-poissonian-traffic-models-matter-more-now-than-ever-part-5/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.eqnets.com/2009/08/03/why-poissonian-traffic-models-matter-more-now-than-ever-part-5/</link>
	<description>Science, networks, and security</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Aug 2010 22:01:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martingales from finite Markov processes, part 1 &#171; Equilibrium Networks</title>
		<link>http://blog.eqnets.com/2009/08/03/why-poissonian-traffic-models-matter-more-now-than-ever-part-5/#comment-188</link>
		<dc:creator>Martingales from finite Markov processes, part 1 &#171; Equilibrium Networks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 04:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.eqnets.com/?p=211#comment-188</guid>
		<description>[...] The question for now is, once you&#8217;ve got a finite Markov process, what do you do with it? There are some obvious things. For example, you could apply a Chebyshev-type inequality to detect when the traffic parameters change or the underlying assumptions break down (which, if the model is halfway decent, by definition indicates something interesting is going on&#8211;even if it&#8217;s not malicious). This idea has been around in network security at least since Denning&#8217;s 1986-7 intrusion detection article, though, so it&#8217;s not likely to bear any more fruit (assuming it ever did). A better idea is to construct and exploit martingales. One way to do this to advantage starting with an inhomogeneous Poisson process (or in principle, at least, more general one-dimensional point processes) was outlined here and here. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The question for now is, once you&#8217;ve got a finite Markov process, what do you do with it? There are some obvious things. For example, you could apply a Chebyshev-type inequality to detect when the traffic parameters change or the underlying assumptions break down (which, if the model is halfway decent, by definition indicates something interesting is going on&#8211;even if it&#8217;s not malicious). This idea has been around in network security at least since Denning&#8217;s 1986-7 intrusion detection article, though, so it&#8217;s not likely to bear any more fruit (assuming it ever did). A better idea is to construct and exploit martingales. One way to do this to advantage starting with an inhomogeneous Poisson process (or in principle, at least, more general one-dimensional point processes) was outlined here and here. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
