From Replay to Regeneration: Recovery of UDP Flood Network Attack Scenario Based on SDN

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors proposed a probabilistic method for network attack scene recovery. The manuscript is written well on a practical topic. However, some minor issues need to be addressed, which are listed below:

 

The authors should cite the contributions of the manuscript in the introduction section (not in the literature review section). Besides, in this section, the purpose of proposing a new model should be mentioned.

 

Please provide more details about the proposed model and its implementation. How the results would be different in the case of using the Waxman model?

 

Pearson’s correlation equations are unnecessary since this is a well-known method.

 

Section 4 discusses the results, which are yet to present in the next section; accordingly, please consider placing this section after the result section.

 

 

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The authors claimed that existing approaches to network attack scenario recovery lack the ability to regenerate real network attack traffic. There is a need to justify this claim with the related literature and define the scope of the literature search.

2. The authors need to check the citations of references 16 and 17 in Table 7. It appears there is a mismatch. Please, check the entire references and make revisions as appropriate.

3. The authors need to show a convincing difference between the current work and the existing work; "RTMA: Real-Time Mining Algorithm for Multi-Step Attack Scenarios Reconstruction".

4. By how much is the proposed method closer to the actual network attack scenario, and how similar is it to the attack scenario being investigated?

5. A more rigorous analysis and elaborate comparison in terms of energy consumption, computational complexity, and overhead costs are required to demonstrate the efficacy of the projected protocol.

6. What are the limitations of the proposed scheme?

7. The future scope is missing in the conclusion, please, add it appropriately.

8. English language check is required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed my earlier comments.