The DOI matches its Crossref record.
2014 IEEE Global Communications Conference
Abstract
A route leak can be defined as a security gap that occurs due to the infringement of the routing policies that any two Autonomous Systems (ASes) have agreed upon. Route leaks are seemingly simple, but hard to resolve since the ASes keep their routing policies confidential. Indeed, the traditional palliatives, such as the utilization of route filters, are no longer used by a large number of ASes, given the high administrative burden that they entail. Other alternatives, like BGP monitoring tools, not only require third party information gathered at multiple vantage points, but also they become impotent in many cases, due to their limited view of the interdomain routing state. In this paper, we propose a different approach, which allows to autonomously detect the occurrence of route leaks by solely inspecting the BGP information available at the AS. Our main contributions can be summarized as follows. First, we propose a self-contained Route Leak Detection (RLD) technique, which is based on real-time analytics on the Route Information Bases (RIBs) of the border routers of an AS. Second, we introduce Benign Fool Back (BFB), "a harmless bluff" that can substantially improve the success rate of the RLD technique. Third, we show through exhaustive simulations that our technique can detect route leak incidents in various scenarios with high success rate. In addition, our solution has the following practical advantages: a) no reliance on third party information (e.g., on vantage points); b) no changes required to control-plane protocols (e.g., to BGP); and c) allows non-invasive integration (e.g., using SDN).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A survey on security and privacy of federated learning
Mothukuri, V., Parizi, R. M., Pouriyeh, S., Huang, Y., Dehghantanha, A., & Srivastava, G. (2021) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2020.10.007 · Cited by 1,480
A Comprehensive Survey on Attacks, Security Issues and Blockchain Solutions for IoT and IIoT
Sengupta, J., Ruj, S., & Das Bit, S. (2020) · Journal of Network and Computer Applications · doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2019.102481 · Cited by 844
Privacy-preserving artificial intelligence in healthcare: Techniques and applications
Khalid, N., Qayyum, A., Bilal, M., Al-Fuqaha, A., & Qadir, J. (2023) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.106848 · Cited by 581
Federated Learning for intrusion detection system: Concepts, challenges and future directions
Agrawal, S., Sarkar, S., Aouedi, O., Yenduri, G., Piamrat, K., Alazab, M., Bhattacharya, S., Maddikunta, P. K. R., & Gadekallu, T. R. (2022) · Computer Communications · doi:10.1016/j.comcom.2022.09.012 · Cited by 457
Applications of blockchain in unmanned aerial vehicles: A review
Alladi, T., Chamola, V., Sahu, N., & Guizani, M. (2020) · Vehicular Communications · doi:10.1016/j.vehcom.2020.100249 · Cited by 274
Metadata
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2014
- OpenAlex
- W4234865505
- Cited by
- 1,405
- References
- 0
- Type
- paratext
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: 2014 IEEE Global Communications Conference. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/globecom18177.2014
- The paper
- 2014 IEEE Global Communications Conference. (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/globecom18177.2014
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.