Managing Computer Networks Security through Self-Organization: A Complex System Perspective

  • Noria Foukia
  • Salima Hassas
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2977)


The present paper proposes a new perspective to deal with computer networks security. Networks can be viewed as complex systems that exhibit self-organization and self-control properties. These properties are well suited for today’s open networks like the Internet. In such uncertain environment as the Internet, ensuring survivability is a hard task. A parallel is made with natural life systems that also have to survive external aggression and that also exhibit complex system characteristics. This paper describes our research work dealing with complex architecture for Intrusion Detection and Response System (IDRS). In the perspective of complex systems, the proposed IDRS presents self-organization characteristics based on interaction between single entities. These entities are implemented using Mobile Agents (MAs) that incarnate a complex “artificial ecosystem” to detect and to answer intrusions.


Self-organization emergent behavior swarm intelligence software engineering complex networks intrusion detection and response mobile agents 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Albert, R., Jeong, H., Barabasi, A.: Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature 406, 378–382 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Babaoglu, O., Meling, H., Montresor, A.: Anthill: A framework for the development of agent-based paeer to peer systems. In: Proceedings of the ICDCS 2002, Vienna (July 2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barabasi, A., Albert, R.: Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286, 509–512 (1999)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Braginsky, D., Estrin, D.: Rumour routing algorithm for sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the Fisrt Workshop on Sensor Networks and Applications (WSNA), Atlanta, GA, USA (September 2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Faloutsos, M., Faloutsos, P., Faloutsos, C.: On power-law relationships of the internet topology. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 1999, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp. 251–262 (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fenet, S., Hassas, S.: A distributed intrusion detection and response system based on mobile autonomous agents using social insects communication. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 63, 21–31 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fenet, S., Hassas, S.: An ant based system for dynamic multiple criteria balancing. In: Proceedings of the Fisrt Workshop on ANT Systems, Brussels, Belgium (September 1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Foukia, N., Hassas, S., Fenet, S., Albuquerque, P.: Combining immune systems and social insect metaphors: a paradigm for distributed intrusion detection and response systems. In: Horlait, E., Magedanz, T., Glitho, R.H. (eds.) MATA 2003. LNCS, vol. 2881, pp. 251–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hofmeyr, S., Forrest, S.: Architecture for an artificial immune system. Evolutionary Computation 7(1), 1289–1296 (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holland, J.H.: Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Mitchell, M.: Analogy-making as a complex adaptive system. In: Segel, L., Cohen, I. (eds.) Design Principles for the Immune System and Other Distributed Autonomous Systems, Oxford University Press, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mamei, M., Zambonelli, F., Leonardi, L.: Tuples on the air: a middleware for context-aware computing in dynamic networks. In: Proceedings of the Fisrt International ICDCS Workshop on Mobile Computing Middleware (MCM 2003), Providence, Rhode Island (May 2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Park, S.T., Khrabrov, A., Pennock, D.M., Lawrence, S., Giles, C.L., Ungar, L.H.: Static and dynamic analysis of the internet’s susceptibility to faults and attacks. In: IEEE INFOCOM (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Albert, R., Barabasi, A.-L.: Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics 74 (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Menezes, R., Tolksdorf, R.: A new approach to scalable linda-systems based on swarms. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schoonderwoerd, R., Holland, O., Bruten, J.: Ant-like agents for load balancing in telecommunications networks. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Autonomous Agents, February 5-8, pp. 209–216 (1997)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bandini, S., S. Manzoniand C. Simone: Heterogenous agents situated in heterogenous spaces. In: 3rd International Symposium From Agent Theories to Agent Implementations, Vienna, A. (April 2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tauber, A.: The Biological Notion of Self and Non-self. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2002 Edition) (2002),
  20. 20.
    Watts, D.J., Strogatz, S.H.: Collective dynamics of small-world networks. Nature 393, 440–442 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Noria Foukia
    • 1
  • Salima Hassas
    • 2
  1. 1.University of GenevaGeneva 4Switzerland
  2. 2.LIRIS, Nautibus, 8 Bd Niels BohrUniversité Claude Bernard-Lyon 1Villeurbanne

Personalised recommendations