2001
DOI: 10.21236/ada398264
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Denial of Service (DOS) Attack Assessment Analysis Report

Abstract: Public reporting burden lor this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory 111O0 Johns Hopkins Road Laurel, MD 20723-6099 SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)Defense Advanced This effort… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2002
2002

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Twenty stochastic runs on a model of the same network were analyzed to compare modelgenerated behavior with live network behavior. A series of formal assertions about TCP were checked against both live network and model data to test protocol validity [2]. In addition, traffic statistics were compared between the live network and model for HTTP, FTP and Telnet [2].…”
Section: Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Twenty stochastic runs on a model of the same network were analyzed to compare modelgenerated behavior with live network behavior. A series of formal assertions about TCP were checked against both live network and model data to test protocol validity [2]. In addition, traffic statistics were compared between the live network and model for HTTP, FTP and Telnet [2].…”
Section: Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A series of formal assertions about TCP were checked against both live network and model data to test protocol validity [2]. In addition, traffic statistics were compared between the live network and model for HTTP, FTP and Telnet [2]. Figures 1 and 2 show two such comparisons for HTTP.…”
Section: Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%