Problem and challenges Sample Clauses

Problem and challenges. Pervasive Vehicle-to-everything (V2X) connectivity and the emergence of effective data-driven methods based on AI/ML drive a paradigm shift towards Connected and Automated Mobility (CAM) services and applications [18]. A key functionality in vehicular systems that can benefit from AI/ML is security, which is essential for ensuring road safety in CAM environments. V2X security threats and attacks can either originate from malicious outsiders which are vehicles/users exogenous to the original system, or insiders which are already authenticated and possess valid credentials to interact with other legitimate entities in the system. While outsider attacks can be efficiently addressed even in highly dense V2X scenarios with a proper extension of the 5G Authentication and Key Agreement (5G-AKA) procedure, as shown in [19], insider attacks are often difficult to detect and contain, particularly when attackers behave intelligently while conforming to normal system behaviour. For example, an already authenticated vehicle may be able to intentionally transmit false kinematic information (e.g., position, speed, acceleration, heading-angle data) in its broadcast messages and cause disruption in the network. Seemingly abnormal vehicular activity originated from malicious actors (e.g., vehicles) may take the form of highly sophisticated attacks. Such malicious/selfish behaviours from such rogue insiders are commonly referred to as misbehaviours in V2X, and they pose a serious threat when transmitting erroneous/incorrect data in safety-critical situations. Ensuring the semantic correctness of exchanged V2X information is thus of paramount importance.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Problem and challenges. The advent of 5G and its many advances over previous mobile technologies - much lower latency, huge bandwidth, the possibility to connect many more devices per square meter, and so on and so forth - will not just bring benefits. It turns out that all these advances in mobile network performance will provide the perfect breeding ground for attacks. Denial-of-service attacks, in particular, will benefit the most from this: larger bandwidth will allow much more traffic to be sent per device, and the fact that many more devices can be concurrently connected to the network (proliferation of IoT devices) will allow much larger, and much more powerful botnets to be created in order to carry out these types of attacks much more effectively, especially empowering distributed denial-of-service attacks (DDoS) The main challenge that arises from the previous aspects is an effective detection for traditional DDoS attacks (e.g., flooding attacks) and also for more advanced stealthy DDoS attacks (e.g., SlowDoS attacks). For this purpose, we aim to leverage AI techniques, particularly Deep Learning techniques, for an efficient detection and mitigation of such attacks in 5G environments.
Problem and challenges. Many research efforts have been devoted to tackle DDoS attacks leveraging ML and/or SDN. Xxxxx et al. [44] proposed an intelligent method for detecting network-layer DDoS attacks in an SDN environment. The proposed method uses a Self-Organizing Maps (SOM) [45] model, an unsupervised artificial neural network, trained on traffic flow features. The contribution in [46] rely on DNN models to detect intrusion in an SDN network. The authors in [47] devised a ML-based collaborative DDoS mitigation strategy in a multi-SDN controller environment. The detection is performed Naive Bayes classifier based on flow features extracted by the SDN controller. Upon detection of malicious ďĞŚĂǀŝŽƵƌ͕ ƚŚĞ ^ E ĐŽŶƚƌŽůůĞƌ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ĂƚƚĂĐŬĞƌ͛ based flow. Similar to [40], the work in [42] , [43] consider only network-layer attacks. Moreover, the proposed models are trained on NSL-KDD, a relatively old dataset that cannot reflect the current trend in network attacks. Hong et al.[48] devised an SDN-assisted defence method to detect and mitigate slow HTTP DDoS attacks. The defence solution is deployed as a SDN application and triggered by the web server when the number of open connections that sent incomplete HTTP requests exceeds a given threshold. The major weakness of threshold-based schemes is their lack of accuracy. In fact, threshold-based schemes are unsuitable for detecting application-layer DDoS attacks due to the resemblance between the traffic patterns generated by those attacks and benign activities. The authors in [49] demonstrated the potential of ML techniques in detecting low-rate application-layer DDoS using the characteristics of malicious TCP flows. A detection accuracy of over 97% has been achieved using K-Nearest Neighbour, Decision Trees and DNN techniques. Some solutions related to the detection of DDoS attacks over 5G multi-tenant networks have been presented in recent years. For instance, Mamolar et. al [50] proposed an extension of the well-known Intrusion Detection System (IDS) Snort, capable of detecting DDoS attacks in real time, to support 5G multi-tenant traffic, so it can be deployed in a multi-tenant 5G environment. However, they do not leverage any AI technique, so we consider this approach too static and inappropriate for such dynamic network environments as those found in 5G. Furthermore, very few contributions have focused on addressing the issue in 5G network slicing environment leveraging mainly the resource isolation concept (e.g., [51]). However,...
Problem and challenges. B5G network opens new opportunities to operators to apply ML to solve multiple problems, including advanced security management. To achieve these results, it is needed to invest a non-negligible quantity of effort in the data engineering process, including data sources identification, data transformation, and to evaluate conditions such as frequency and quality of the data. Network range- digital twin (NDT) appears as a potential solution for assessing solutions related to AI/ML architectures. This includes generation, collection, and transformation of data to design and test different ML models in an emulated environment before deploying in production, reducing the cost and investment. This model could fit for offline ML training, and ML inference engine delivery. Figure 18 shows the holistic process combining several enablers. Figure 18: Data to ML cycle Mouseworld acts as the 5G twin environment for network traffic generation and delivery. This network flows related information is collected and aggregated through a data collector. The output generated is delivered to design an ML model. The outcome is integrated into the Smart Traffic Analyzer and validated in the Mouseworld. If the model does not achieve the expectations or the traffic scenarios evolves, a redesign can be done.
Problem and challenges. The standard setting in ML considers centralized datasets which are tightly integrated into the system. However, in most real-world scenarios, data is usually distributed among multiple entities. More specifically, centralized data collection is challenging due to the higher communication cost for sending data, when the devices create large volumes of data, serious privacy issues coming with the sharing of sensitive data, overfitting issues with the small datasets and the biased local datasets. As a solution, federated training is proposed where each user and server collaborate to train a unified neural network model. This ML approach was formally published by Google in 2016 as Federated Learning (FL). Simply, FL is a distributed learning concept, where End devices or workers are participating for learning process. The central entity or parameter server shares the training model and aggregates the local model updates coming from workers. Workers train the shared model locally using their own data and send the trained model back to the central server. Central server aggregates the received models and shares the aggregated model with workers. The final model needs to be as good as the centralized solution (ideally), or at least better than what each party can learn on its own. Typically, FL brings the advantages in terms of improving privacy awareness, low communication overhead, and low latency. Most importantly, FL is suitable to address the distributed networking scenarios in the more complex networks. However, FL is vulnerable to poisoning attacks by design (Figure 21). The central server can be poisoned using minimum of one adversarial worker. This will affect the learning process of the entire network. The problem is that the central server cannot guarantee that the workers provide accurate local models and have no control over the level of security at each worker. Another issue is that it is possible to encounter a single point of failure at the central server. Therefore, it is necessary to implement defence mechanisms at the central server to distinguish between poisonous and honest users. It is challenging since the central server has no validation data for verification of the model updates received by the workers. Figure 21: System model of poisoning attacks for Federated Learning

Related to Problem and challenges

  • Challenges The Experts may be challenged by either Party if circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to any of their impartiality or independence. In such circumstances the challenge shall be brought by written notice to the ICC copied to the other Party within fourteen (14) calendar days of the appointment of the relevant Expert or within fourteen (14) calendar days of the challenging Party becoming aware of the circumstances giving rise to the challenge. Unless the challenged Expert withdraws. or whichever of the Parties that has not brought the challenge agrees to the challenge, within fourteen (14) calendar days of the challenge, the ICC shall decide the challenge and, if appropriate, shall appoint a replacement Expert in accordance with the criteria set out herein.

  • Problem Solving Employees and supervisors are encouraged to attempt to resolve on an informal basis, at the earliest opportunity, a problem that could lead to a grievance. If the matter is not resolved by informal discussion, or a problem-solving meeting does not occur, it may be settled in accordance with the grievance procedure. Unless mutually agreed between the Employer and the Union problem-solving discussions shall not extend the deadlines for filing a grievance. The Union Xxxxxxx or in their absence, the Local Union President, or Area Xxxxxxx, or Chief Xxxxxxx, either with the employee or alone, shall present to the appropriate supervisor a written request for a meeting. If the supervisor agrees to a problem- solving meeting, this meeting shall be held within fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt of the request. The supervisor, employee, Union Xxxxxxx, and up to one (1) other management person shall attempt to resolve the problem through direct and forthright communication. If another member of management is present that person will not be hearing the grievance at Step Two, should it progress to that Step. The employee, the Union Xxxxxxx or in their absence, the Local Union President, or Area Xxxxxxx, or Chief Xxxxxxx, may participate in problem-solving activities on paid time, in accordance with Article 31, Union Rights, Section 1H.

  • Company Grievance It is understood that the Company may request a meeting with the Union for the purpose of presenting any complaints with respect to the conduct of the Union. If such a complaint by the Company is not settled, it may be submitted in writing as a grievance at Step 3 and may be referred to arbitration.

  • COMPLAINT AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 1. When a member of the bargaining unit has any grievance or complaint, he shall forthwith convey to his immediate superior, orally with or without a member of the Association Executive or in writing, all facts relative to the grievance and/or complaint. The member and the superior shall make every attempt to resolve the problem at this preliminary stage.

  • Grievability Denial of a petition for reinstatement is grievable. The grievance may not be based on information other than that shared with the Employer at the time of the petition for reinstatement.

  • GRIEVANCE PROCESS RIGHTS No grievant shall lose his/her right to process his/her grievance because of Management-imposed limitations in scheduling meetings.

  • Challenge If Executive violates or challenges the enforceability of any provisions of the Restrictive Covenants or this Release, no further payments, rights or benefits under Section 5 of the Agreement will be due to Executive (except where such provision would be prohibited by applicable law, rule or regulation).

  • Your Grievance and Appeals Rights If you have a complaint or are dissatisfied with a denial of coverage for claims under your plan, you may be able to appeal or file a grievance. For questions about your rights, this notice, or assistance, you can contact your state insurance department at (000) 000-0000 or by email at XxxxxxXxxXxxxxxx@xxxx.xx.xxx, the U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration at 0-000-000-0000 or xxx.xxx.xxx/xxxx, or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services at 0-000-000-0000 x00000 or xxx.xxxxx.xxx.xxx. Does this Coverage Provide Minimum Essential Coverage? The Affordable Care Act requires most people to have health care coverage that qualifies as “minimum essential coverage.” This plan or policy does provide minimum essential coverage. Does this Coverage Meet the Minimum Value Standard? The Affordable Care Act establishes a minimum value standard of benefits of a health plan. The minimum value standard is 60% (actuarial value). This health coverage does meet the minimum value standard for the benefits it provides. Language Access Services: Para obtener asistencia en Español, llame al 0-000-000-0000. Kung kailangan ninyo ang tulong sa Tagalog tumawag sa 0-000-000-0000. 如果需要中文的帮助,请拨打这个号码 0-000-000-0000. Dinek'ehgo shika at'ohwol ninisingo, kwiijigo holne' 0-000-000-0000. ––––––––––––––––––––––To see examples of how this plan might cover costs for a sample medical situation, see the next page.–––––––––––––––––––––– About these Coverage Examples: These examples show how this plan might cover medical care in given situations. Use these examples to see, in general, how much financial protection a sample patient might get if they are covered under different plans. This is not a cost estimator. Don’t use these examples to estimate your actual costs under this plan. The actual care you receive will be different from these examples, and the cost of that care will also be different. See the next page for important information about these examples. Having a baby (normal delivery) ◼ Amount owed to providers: $7,540 ◼ Plan pays $7,490 ◼ Patient pays $50 Sample care costs: Hospital charges (mother) $2,700 Routine obstetric care $2,100 Hospital charges (baby) $900 Anesthesia $900 Laboratory tests $500 Prescriptions $200 Radiology $200 Vaccines, other preventive $40 Total $7,540 Patient pays: Deductibles $0 Copays $20 Coinsurance $0 Limits or exclusions $30 Total $50 Managing type 2 diabetes (routine maintenance of a well-controlled condition) ◼ Amount owed to providers: $5,400 ◼ Plan pays $4,760 ◼ Patient pays $640 Sample care costs: Prescriptions $2,900 Medical Equipment and Supplies $1,300 Office Visits and Procedures $700 Education $300 Laboratory tests $100 Vaccines, other preventive $100 Total $5,400 Patient pays: Deductibles $0 Copays $300 Coinsurance $300 Limits or exclusions $40 Total $640 These examples are based on coverage for an individual plan. Questions and answers about the Coverage Examples: What are some of the assumptions behind the Coverage Examples? • Costs don’t include premiums. • Sample care costs are based on national averages supplied by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and aren’t specific to a particular geographic area or health plan. • The patient’s condition was not an excluded or preexisting condition. • All services and treatments started and ended in the same coverage period. • There are no other medical expenses for any member covered under this plan. • Out-of-pocket expenses are based only on treating the condition in the example. • The patient received all care from in- network providers. If the patient had received care from out-of-network providers, costs would have been higher. What does a Coverage Example show? For each treatment situation, the Coverage Example helps you see how deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance can add up. It also helps you see what expenses might be left up to you to pay because the service or treatment isn’t covered or payment is limited. Does the Coverage Example predict my own care needs?

  • Complaints Procedure 18.1 If the Client has any cause for complaint in relation to the services provided by the Company, he should file a complaint as per the Company’s Complaint Handling policy which is available on the Company’s website.

  • Grievance Mediation a) At any stage in the grievance procedure, the parties by mutual consent in writing may elect to resolve the grievance by using grievance mediation. The parties shall agree on the individual to be the mediator and the time frame in which a resolution is to be reached.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.