Advertisement

Biologically Motivated Approaches for Complex Problem Solving

  • Sushil Kumar
  • Praneet Saurabh
  • Bhupendra Verma
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Bioengineering book series (LNBE)

Abstract

Danger Theory is presented with particular predominance on analogies in the Artificial Immune Systems world. Artificial Immune System (AIS) is relatively naive paradigm for intelligent computations. The inspiration for AIS is derived from natural Immune System (IS). The idea is that the artificial cells release signals describing their status, e.g., safe signals and danger signals. The various artificial cells use the signals in order to adapt their behavior. This new theory suggests that the immune system reacts to threats based on the correlation of various (danger) signals and it provides a method of ‘grounding’ the immune response, i.e., linking it directly to the attacker. In this paper, we look at Danger Theory from the perspective of AIS practitioners and an overview of the Danger Theory is presented with particular emphasis on analogies in the Artificial Immune Systems world.

Keywords

Artificial immune system Danger theory System cells 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers, whose comments greatly improved this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Matzinger P (1998) An Innate sense of danger, Seminars in Immunology, pp 399–415Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Matzinger P (2001) The danger model in its historical context. Scand J Immunol 54:4–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Matzinger P (1994) Tolerance danger and the extended family. Annu Rev Immunol 12:991–1045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burgess M (1998) Computer Immunology. Proc LISA XII:283–297Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Williamson M (2002) Biologically inspired approaches to computer security, HP labs technical reports HPL-2002, pp 131 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Somayaji A, Hofmeyr S, Forrest S (1998) Principles of a computer immune system. In: Proceedings New Security Paradigms Workshop, Charlottesville, pp 75–82Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aickelin U, Cayzer S (2002) The danger theory and its application to artificial immune systems. In: Proceedings of the 1st internet conference on artificial immune systems. ICARIS, Springer, pp 141–148Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aickelin U, Bentley P, Cayzer S, Kim J, McLeod J (2003) Danger theory: the link between AIS and IDS? In: Proceedings ICARIS-2003, 2nd international conference on artificial immune systems. ICARIS, Springer, pp 147–155 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldsby R, Kindt T, Osborne B (2000) Kuby immunology, 4th edn. W H Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bretscher P, Cohn M (1970) A theory of self–nonself discrimination. Science 169:1042–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Matzinger P (1994) Tolerance, danger and the extended family. Annu Rev Immunol 12:991–1045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sundaram A (1996) An introduction to intrusion detection, crossroads: the ACM student magazine 2(4)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Forrest S, Perelson A, Allen L, Cherukuri R (1994) Self non-self discrimination in a computer. In: Proceedings of the 1994 IEEE symposium on research in security and privacy, pp 202–212Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Forrest S, Hofmeyr S, Somayaji A, Longstaff T (1996) A sense of self for unix processes. In: Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE symposium on research in security and privacy, pp 120–128Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hofmeyr S, Forrest S (2000) Architecture for an artificial immune system. Evolutionary Computation 8(4):443–473Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Somayaji A, Forrest S (2000) Automated response using system-call delays. In: Proceedings of the ninth USENIX security symposium, pp 185–197Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sushil Kumar
    • 1
  • Praneet Saurabh
    • 1
  • Bhupendra Verma
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of CSETITBhopalIndia

Personalised recommendations