Fusion Trust Service Assessment for Crisis Management Environments

  • Erik BlaschEmail author
  • Youakim Badr
  • Salim Hariri
  • Youssif Al-Nashif


Future crisis management systems need resilient and trustworthy infrastructures to quickly develop reliable applications and processes, apply fusion techniques, and ensure end-to-end security, trust, and privacy. Due to the multiplicity and diversity of involved actors, volumes of data, and heterogeneity of shared information; crisis management systems tend to be highly vulnerable and subject to unforeseen incidents. As a result, the dependability of crisis management systems can be at risk. This chapter presents a cloud-based resilient and trustworthy infrastructure (known as rDaaS) to quickly develop secure crisis management systems. The rDaaS integrates the Dynamic Data-Driven Application Systems (DDDAS) paradigm into a service-oriented architecture over cloud technology and provides a set of resilient DDDAS-As-A Service (rDaaS) components to build secure and trusted adaptable crisis processes. One service presented includes the fusion of information from human observers and surveillance systems to assess the credibility (trust) of a crisis alert. The fusion trust service within the rDaaS also ensures resilience and security by obfuscating the execution environment and applying Behavior Software Encryption and Moving Technique Defense over the users, machines, and communication network. A simulation environment for a nuclear plant crisis management case study is illustrated to build resilient and trusted crisis response processes.


rDaaS Information fusion Proportional conflict redistribution Resilience Cloud computing Service-oriented computing Trust Security 



This work is partly supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) Dynamic Data-Driven Application Systems (DDDAS), AFOSR FA95550-12-1-0241, National Science Foundation NSF IIP-0758579, NCS-0855087, and IIP-1127873, and Thomson Reuters in the framework of the Partner University Fund (PUF) project (PUF is a program of the French Embassy in the USA and the FACE Foundation and is supported by American donors and the French government).


  1. Abbasy M, Shanmugam B (2011) Enabling data hiding for resource sharing in cloud computing environments based on DNA sequences. In IEEE World CongressGoogle Scholar
  2. Abielmona R, Falcon R, Vachon P, Groza V (2014) Vessel tracking and anomaly detection using level 0/1 and high-level information fusion techniques. Workshop on soft computing applicationsGoogle Scholar
  3. Aggarwal CC, Yu PS (2001) Outlier detection for high dimensional data. In SIGMOD ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  4. Satam P, Alipour H, Al-Nashif Y, Hariri S (2015) DNS-IDS: Securing DNS in the Cloud Era, International Conference on Cloud and Autonomic Computing (ICCAC), pp 296--301Google Scholar
  5. Alipour H, Al-Nashif YB, Satma P, Hariri S (2015) Wireless Anomaly Detection Based on IEEE 802.11 Behavior analysis. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 10(10), 2158--2170Google Scholar
  6. Al-Nashif YB, Kumar A, Hariri S, Luo Y, Szidarovszky F, Qu G (2008) Multi-level intrusion detection system (ML-IDS). ICAC, pp 131–140Google Scholar
  7. Anderson D, Lunt TF, Javitz H, Tamaru A, Valdes A (1995) Detecting unusual program behavior using the statistical component of the next-generation intrusion detection expert system nides. Technical Report SRI-CSL-95-06, Computer Science Laboratory, SRI InternationalGoogle Scholar
  8. Ao Z, Scholz J, Oxehham M (2014) A Scientific Inquiry fusion theory for high-level information fusion. International conference on information fusionGoogle Scholar
  9. Aved AJ, Blasch E (2015) Multi-INT query language for DDDAS designs. Proc Comput Sci 51:2518–2532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Avizienis A (1985) The N-version approach to fault tolerant software. IEEE Trans Softw Eng SE-11(12):1491–1501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barrantes E, Ackley D, Forrest S et al (2003) Intrusion detection: randomized instruction set emulation to disrupt binary code injection attacks. ACM conference on computer and communications securityGoogle Scholar
  12. Barthe-Delanoë A-M et al (2013) A platform for event-driven agility of processes: a delivery context use-case. Collaborative systems for reindustrialization. Springer, Berlin, pp 681–690Google Scholar
  13. Bhadauria R, Sanyal S (2012) Survey on security issues in cloud computing and associated mitigation techniques. Int J Comput Appl 47(18):47–66Google Scholar
  14. Blasch E (2003) Situation, impact, and user refinement. Proc SPIE 5096Google Scholar
  15. Blasch E (2006) Level 5 (User Refinement) issues supporting Information Fusion Management. International conference on information fusionGoogle Scholar
  16. Blasch E (2008) Chapter 19: Introduction to level 5 fusion: the role of the user. In: Liggins ME, Hall D, Llinas J (eds) Handbook of multisensor data fusion, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  17. Blasch E (2014) Context aided sensor and human-based information fusion. IEEE National Aerospace and Electronics (NAECON)Google Scholar
  18. Blasch E (2014) Trust metrics in information fusion. Proc SPIE 9091Google Scholar
  19. Blasch E (2015) One decade of the Data Fusion Information Group (DFIG) model. Proc SPIE 9499Google Scholar
  20. Blasch E, Israel S (2015) Situation/threat context assessment. International conference on information fusionGoogle Scholar
  21. Blasch EP, Plano SB (2002) JDL Level 5 Fusion model ‘user refinement’ issues and applications in group tracking. Proc SPIE 4729Google Scholar
  22. Blasch E, Plano S (2005) DFIG Level 5 (User Refinement) issues supporting Situational Assessment Reasoning. International conference on information fusionGoogle Scholar
  23. Blasch E, Pribilski M, Daughtery B, Roscoe B, Gunsett J (2004) Fusion metrics for dynamic situation analysis. Proc SPIE 5429Google Scholar
  24. Blasch E, Kadar I, Salerno J, Kokar MM, Das S, Powell GM, Corkill DD, Ruspini EH (2006) Issues and challenges in situation assessment (Level 2 Fusion). J Adv Inform Fusion 1(2):122–139Google Scholar
  25. Blasch E, Kadar I, Hintz K, Biermann J, Chong C-Y, Salerno J, Das S (2008) Resource management coordination with level 2/3 fusion issues and challenges. IEEE Aerosp Electron Syst Mag 23(3):32–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Blasch E, Valin P, Bosse E, Nilsson M, Van Laere J, Shahbazian E (2009) Implication of culture: user roles in information fusion for enhanced situational understanding. International conference on information fusionGoogle Scholar
  27. Blasch E, Dorion É, Valin P, Bossé E, Roy J (2010) Ontology alignment in geographical hard-soft information fusion systems. International conference on information fusionGoogle Scholar
  28. Blasch EP, Valin P, Bossé E (2010) Measures of effectiveness for high-level fusion. International conference on information fusionGoogle Scholar
  29. Blasch E, Breton R, Valin P, Bosse E (2011) User information fusion decision making analysis with the C-OODA model. International conference on information fusionGoogle Scholar
  30. Blasch E, Breton R, Valin P (2011) Using the C-OODA model for CIMIC analysis. IEEE National Aerospace and Electronics ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  31. Blasch E, Deignan PB Jr, Dockstader SL, Pellechia M et al (2011) Contemporary concerns in geographical/geospatial information systems (GIS) processing. IEEE National Aerospace and Electronics Conference (NAECON)Google Scholar
  32. Blasch E, Dezert J, Valin P (2011) DSMT Applied to Seismic and Acoustic Sensor Fusion. Proceedings of the IEEE National Aerospace Electronics Conference (NAECON)Google Scholar
  33. Blasch EP, Bosse E, Lambert DA (2012a) High-level information fusion management and systems design. Artech House, Norwood, MAGoogle Scholar
  34. Blasch E, Banas C et al (2012) Pattern Activity Clustering and Evaluation (PACE). Proc SPIE 8402Google Scholar
  35. Blasch E, Lambert DA, Valin P, Kokar MM, Llinas J, Das S et al (2012c) High level information fusion (HLIF) survey of models, issues, and grand challenges. IEEE Aerosp Electron Syst Mag 27(9):4–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Blasch E, Valin P, Jousselme A-L, Lambert DA, Bossé E (2012) Top ten trends in high-level information fusion. International conference on information fusionGoogle Scholar
  37. Blasch E, Chen Y, Chen G, Shen D, Kohler R (2013a) Information fusion in a cloud-enabled environment. In: Han K, Choi B-Y, Song S (eds) High performance cloud auditing and applications. Springer, New York, pp 91--115Google Scholar
  38. Blasch E, Seetharaman G, Reinhardt K (2013b) Dynamic data driven applications system concept for information fusion. Procedia Computer Science 18:1999–2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Blasch E, Dezert J, Pannetier B (2013) Overview of Dempster-Shafer and belief function tracking methods. Proc SPIE 8745Google Scholar
  40. Blasch E, Steinberg A, Das S, Llinas J, Chong C-Y, Kessler O, Waltz E, White F (2013) Revisiting the JDL model for information Exploitation. International conference on information fusionGoogle Scholar
  41. Blasch E, Laskey KB, Joussselme A-L, Dragos V, Costa PCG, Dezert J (2013) URREF reliability versus credibility in information fusion (STANAG 2511). International conference on information fusionGoogle Scholar
  42. Blasch E, Al-Nashif Y, Hariri S (2014) Static versus Dynamic Data Information Fusion analysis using DDDAS for Cyber Trust. International conference on computational science, Procedia Computer ScienceGoogle Scholar
  43. Blasch E, Nagy J, Aved A, Pottenger WM, Schneider M, Hammoud R, Jones EK, Basharat A et al (2014) Context aided video-to-text information fusion. International conference on information fusionGoogle Scholar
  44. Blasch E, Jøsang A, Dezert J, Costa PC, Laskey KB, Jousselme A-L (2014) URREF self-confidence in Information Fusion Trust. International conference on information fusionGoogle Scholar
  45. Breunig MM, Kriegel H, Ng RT, Sander J (2000) LOF: identifying density-based local outliers. Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pp 93–104Google Scholar
  46. Cadar C, Akritidis P, Costa, M, Martin J-P, Castro M, (2008) Data randomization. Technical Report MSR-TR-2008-120, Microsoft ResearchGoogle Scholar
  47. Chen G, Shen D, Kwan C, Cruz JB et al (2007a) Game theoretic approach to threat prediction and situation awareness. J Adv Inform Fusion 2(1):1–14Google Scholar
  48. Chen G, Tian Z, Shen D et al (2007) A novel framework for command and control of networked sensor systems. Proc SPIE 6578Google Scholar
  49. Chen D, Chen G, Cruz J, Haynes L et al (2007) A Markov game theoretic data fusion approach for cyber situational awareness. Proc SPIE 6571Google Scholar
  50. Cheng E, Ma L, Blaisse A et al (2014) Efficient feature extraction from wide area motion imagery by MapReduce in Hadoop. Proc SPIE 9089Google Scholar
  51. Costa PC, Laskey KB et al (2012) Towards unbiased evaluation of uncertainty reasoning: the URREF ontology. International conference on information fusionGoogle Scholar
  52. Daniel M (2006) Generalization of the classic combination rules to DSm hyper-power sets. Inform Security 20Google Scholar
  53. Denning DE (1987) An intrusion-detection model. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 13(2):222–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Dezert J (2002) Foundations for a new theory of plausible and paradoxical reasoning. Inform Security, An Int’l Journal, ed. by Prof. Tzv. Semerdjiev, vol 9Google Scholar
  55. Dezert J (2012) Non-Bayesian reasoning for information fusion – a tribute to Lofti Zadeh. Submitted to J Adv Inform FusionGoogle Scholar
  56. Dezert J, Smarandache F (2003) On the generation of hyper-powersets for the DSmT. International conference on information fusionGoogle Scholar
  57. Dezert J, Smarandache F (2009) Advances and applications of DSmT for information fusion (Collected works), vol 1–3. American Research Press, RehobothzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  58. Dijkman RM, Dumas M, Ouyang C (2008) Semantics and analysis of business process models in BPMN. Inf Softw Technol 50(12):1281–1294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Djiknavorian P, Grenier D, Valin P (2010) Approximation in DSm theory for fusing ESM reports. International workshop on belief functionsGoogle Scholar
  60. Dsouza G, Rodríguez G, Al-Nashif YB, Hariri S (2013) Building resilient cloud services using DDDAS and moving target defence. Int J Cloud Comput 2(2/3):171–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Dunlop M, Groat S, Urbanski W, Marchany R, Tront J (2011) MT6D:a moving target IPv6 defense. In IEEE military communications conference (MILCOM)Google Scholar
  62. Endsley MR (1988) Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement. Proc Hum Fact Ergon Soc Annu Meet 32:97–101Google Scholar
  63. Ertöz L, Eilertson E, Lazarevic A, Tan P, Kumar V, Srivastava J, Dokas P (2004) Minds - Minnesota intrusion detection system. In: Data mining - next generation challenges and future directions. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  64. Eskin E, Arnold A, Prerau M, Portnoy L, Stolfo S (2002) A geometric framework for unsupervised anomaly detection: detecting intrusions in unlabeled data. In: Proceedings of applications of data mining in computer security. Kluwer Academics, Boston, pp 78–100Google Scholar
  65. Evans D, Nguyen-Tuong A, Knight J (2011) Effectiveness of moving target defenses. In: Advances in information security. Springer, New York, pp 29–39Google Scholar
  66. Feng J, Chen Y, Summerville D, Ku W, Su Z (2011) Enhancing cloud storage security against roll-back attacks with a new fair multi-party non-repudiation protocol. In Consumer communications and networking conferenceGoogle Scholar
  67. Florea MC, Bosse E (2009) Crisis management using Dempster-Shafer theory: similarity measures to characterize source’s reliability. RTO-MP-IST-086Google Scholar
  68. Florea MC, Dezert J, Valin P, Smarandache F, Jousselme A-L (2006) Adaptive combination rule and proportional conflict redistribution rule for information fusion. COGIS '06 conferenceGoogle Scholar
  69. Ge L, Yu W, Shen D, Chen G, Pham K et al (2014) Toward effectiveness and agility of network security situational awareness using moving target defense (MTD). Proc SPIE 9085Google Scholar
  70. Ge L, Zhang H, Xu G, Yu W et al (2015) Towards MapReduce based machine learning techniques for processing massive network threat monitoring data. In: Networking for big data. CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  71. Goodin D (2009) Webhost Hack Wipes Out Data for 100,000 Sites. 8 June 2009 [Online].
  72. Gruniger M, Obrst L (eds) (2014) Semantic Web and big data meets applied ontology. Ontology SummitGoogle Scholar
  73. Javitz HS, Valdes A (1994) The nides statistical component: description and justification. Technical Report, SRI International Menlo Park, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  74. Jeffrey D, Sanjay G (2008) MapReduce: simplified data processing on large clusters. In Communications of the ACMGoogle Scholar
  75. Josang A, Daniel M (2006) Strategies for combining conflict dogmatic beliefs. International conference on information fusionGoogle Scholar
  76. Kankanamge RPR (2010) Information systems for supporting fire emergency. PhD Thesis, Loughborough UniversityGoogle Scholar
  77. Kaufman L (2009) Data security in the world of cloud computing. IEEE Security Privacy J 7(4):61–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Keromytis A, Sethumadhavan GRS, Stolfo S, Junfeng Y, Benameur A, Dacier M, Elder M, Kienzle D, Stavrou A (2012) The MEERKATS Cloud Security Architecture. In 32nd international conference on distributed computing systems workshopsGoogle Scholar
  79. Kim K (1998) ROAFTS: a middleware architecture for real-time object-oriented adaptive fault tolerance support. In IEEE CS 1998 High-Assurance Systems Engineering (HASE) Symposium Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  80. Kim K, Welch H (1989) Distributed execution of recovery blocks: an approach for uniform treatment of hardware and software faults in real-time applications. IEEE Trans Comput 38(5):626–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Knorr EM, Ng RT (1998) Algorithms for mining distance-based outliers in large datasets. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on very large data bases, VLDB, pp 392–403, 24–27Google Scholar
  82. Latif-Shabgahi S (2011) An integrated voting algorithm for fault tolerant systems. In Proceedings of the international conference on software and computer applications (IPCSIT), vol 9Google Scholar
  83. Lee ZH, Choir JS, Elmasri R (2010) A static evidential network for context reasoning in home-based care. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cyber Part A Syst Hum 40(6):1232–1243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Li W, Badr Y, Biennier F (2013) Service farming: an ad-hoc and QoS-aware web service composition approach. Dans SAC 2013, Coimbra, Portugal, pp 750–756Google Scholar
  85. Liu Z, Blasch E, Xue Z, Langaniere R, Wu W (2012) Objective assessment of multiresolution image fusion algorithms for context enhancement in night vision: a comparative survey. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 34(1):94–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Liu B, Blasch E, Chen Y, Aved AJ et al (2014) Information fusion in a cloud computing era: a systems-level perspective. IEEE Aerosp Electron Syst Mag 29(10):16–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Lunt TF, Jagannathan R (1988) A prototype real-time intrusion-detection expert system. In Proceedings of the IEEE symposium on security and privacy, pp 18–21Google Scholar
  88. Luo D, Wang J (2010) CC-VIT: virtualization intrusion tolerance based on cloud computing. In 2nd International conference on information engineering and computer scienceGoogle Scholar
  89. Marhsall P (2014) Agencies push Geospatial data to the rank and file. GCN, Nov/Dec 2014Google Scholar
  90. Martin A, Osswald C, Dezert J, Smarandache F (2008) General combination rules for qualitative and quantitative beliefs. J Adv Inform Fusion 3(2):67–89Google Scholar
  91. Mendoza-Schrock O, Patrick JA et al (2009) Video image registration evaluation for a layered sensing environment. Proceedings of the IEEE National Aerospace Electronics Conference (NAECON)Google Scholar
  92. Modi C, Patel D, Borisaniya B, Patel A, Rajarajan M (2013) A survey on security issues and solutions at different layers of Cloud computing. J Supercomput 63:561–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Narain S (2013) Moving target defense with configuration space randomization. Accessed 30 Jan 2013
  94. NIST (2010) Recommended security controls for federal information systems and organizations. NIST Special Publication 800-53, Revision 3Google Scholar
  95. PaX Homepage 2000 [Online]. Accessed Oct 2012
  96. Paxson V (1999) Bro: a system for detecting network intruders in real-time. Comput Networks (Amsterdam, Netherlands: 1999) 31(23–24):2435–2463Google Scholar
  97. Pék G, Butty´an L, Bencsáth B (2013) A survey of security issues in hardware virtualization. ACM Computer Surv 45(3), Article 40 (July 2013), 34 pagesGoogle Scholar
  98. Peng L, Lipinski D, Mohseni K (2014) Dynamic Data Driven Application System for plume estimation using UAVs. J Intell Robot Syst 74:421–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Pipkin DL (2000) Information security: protecting the global enterprise. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  100. Porras PA, Neumann PG (1997) Emerald: event monitoring enabling responses to anomalous live disturbances. In Proceedings of the National Information Systems Security Conference, pp. 353–365, 1997Google Scholar
  101. Ramaswamy S, Rastogi R, Shim K (2000) Efficient algorithms for mining outliers from large datasets. Proceedings of the ACM SIDMOD international conference on management of data, pp 427–438Google Scholar
  102. Roesch M (1999) Snort - lightweight intrusion detection for networks. 13th Systems Administration Conference - LISAGoogle Scholar
  103. Rosenblum M, Garfinkel T (2005) When virtual is harder than real: security challenges in virtual machine based computing environments. In 10th conference on hot topics in operating systems, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  104. Scarfone K, Mell P (2007) Guide to Intrusion Detection and Prevention Systems (IDPS). Computer Security Resource Center (National Institute of Standards and Technology) (800–94). Retrieved 1 Jan 2010Google Scholar
  105. Schmidt M, Baumgartner L, Graubner P, Bock D, Freisleben B (2011) Malware detection and Kernel Rootkit prevention in cloud computing environments. In 19th Euromicro international conference on parallel, distributed and network-based processingGoogle Scholar
  106. Schneider J, Romanowski CJ, Stein K (2013) Decision making to support local emergency 960 preparation, response, and recovery, IEEE International Conference on Technologies for Homeland Security, pp 498--503Google Scholar
  107. Scott PD (2007) Information fusion for natural and man-made disasters. AFOSR Grant F49620-01-1-0371, Jan 2007Google Scholar
  108. Security as a Service. Cloud Security Alliance, [Online]. Accessed Jan 2013
  109. Sekar R, Gupta A, Frullo J, Shanbhag T, Tiwari A, Yang H, Zhou S (2002) Specification-based anomaly detection: a new approach for detecting network intrusions. In CCS’02: Proceedings of the 9th ACM conference on computer and communications security, pp 265–274, New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  110. Sequeira K, Zaki M (2002) Admit: anomaly-based data mining for intrusions. Proceedings of ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining (KDD), pp 386–395Google Scholar
  111. Shafer G (1976) A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  112. Shon T, Moon J (2007) A hybrid machine learning approach to network anomaly detection. Inform Sci 177(18):3799–3821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Siddiqui MS, Verma D (2011) Cross site request forgery: a common web application weakness. IEEE International Conference on Communication Software and Networks (ICCSN), pp 538–543Google Scholar
  114. Smaradache F, Dezert J (2005) Information fusion based on new proportional conflict redistribution rules. International conference on information fusionGoogle Scholar
  115. Smets P (2005) Analyzing the combination of conflicting belief functions. International conference on information fusionGoogle Scholar
  116. Staniford S, Hoagland JA, McAlerney JM (2002) Practical automated detection of stealthy portscans. J Comput Security 10(1–2):105–136Google Scholar
  117. Steinberg AN, Bowman CL, Haith G et al (2014) Adaptive context assessment and context management. International conference on information fusionGoogle Scholar
  118. Subashini VS (2011) A survey on security issues in service delivery models of cloud computing. J Netw Comput Appl 34:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Toy WN (1987) Fault-Tolerant Computing, Advances in Computers, Vol. 26, Academic Press, 201--279Google Scholar
  120. Tunc C, Fargo F, Al-Nashif Y, Hariri S, Hughes J (2014) Autonomic Resilient Cloud Management (ARCM). ACM international conference on cloud and autonomic computing (CAC '14)Google Scholar
  121. Tyrrell A (1996) Recovery blocks and algorithm based fault tolerance. In 22nd EUROMICRO conferenceGoogle Scholar
  122. Vallee G, Engelmann C, Tikotekar A, Naughton T, Charoenpornwattana K, Leangsuksun C, Scott S (2008) A framework for proactive fault tolerance. International conference on availability, reliability and securityGoogle Scholar
  123. Verissimo P, Bessani A, Pasin M (2012) The TClouds architecture: open and resilient cloud-of-clouds computing. In IEEE/IFIP 42nd international conference on dependable systems and networks workshopsGoogle Scholar
  124. Viswanathan RP, Al-Nashif Y, Hariri S (2011) Application attack detection system (AADS): an anomaly based behavior analysis approach. ACS/IEEE international conference on computer systems and applicationsGoogle Scholar
  125. Wen Y (2011) Heterogeneous sensor fusion in sensor networks: a language-theoretic approach. PhD Dissertation, Penn State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  126. Yamanishi K, Takeuchi J, Williams GJ, Milne P (2000) On-line unsupervised outlier detection using finite mixtures with discounting learning algorithms. In Knowledge discovery and data mining, pp 320–324Google Scholar
  127. Yang C et al (2008) Fusion of tracks with road constraints. J Adv Inform Fusion 3(1):14–32Google Scholar
  128. Yang C, Nguyen T et al (2014) Mobile positioning with fused mixed signals of opportunity. IEEE Aerosp Electron Syst Mag 29(4):34–46CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  129. Ye N (2004) A markov chain model of temporal behavior for anomaly detection. In Proceedings of IEEE 5th annual IEEE information assurance workshopGoogle Scholar
  130. Ye N, Chen Q (2001) An anomaly detection technique based on a chi-square statistic for detecting intrusions into in-formation systems. Qual Reliab Eng Int 17:105–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Yen J (1986) A reasoning model based on the extended Dempster Shafer theory. National conference on artificial intelligenceGoogle Scholar
  132. Zeng H (2013) Research on developing an attack and defense lab environment for cross site scripting education in higher vocational colleges. International Conference on Computational and Information SciencesGoogle Scholar
  133. Zhuang R, Zhang S, DeLoach SA, Ou X, Singhal A (2012) Simulation-based approaches to studying effectiveness of moving-target network defense. In National symposium on moving target researchGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erik Blasch
    • 1
    Email author
  • Youakim Badr
    • 2
  • Salim Hariri
    • 3
  • Youssif Al-Nashif
    • 4
  1. 1.Air Force Research LaboratoryInformation DirectorateRomeUSA
  2. 2.CNRS, LIRIS, UMR5205, INSA-Lyon, Université de LyonLyonFrance
  3. 3.Center for Cloud and Autonomic ComputingUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  4. 4.Old Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA

Personalised recommendations