Quantum Computing in Cybersecurity E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 817

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2023

Beschreibung

Machine learning, deep learning, probabilistic neural networks, blockchain, and other new technologies all demand extremely high processing speeds. A quantum computer is an example of such a system. Quantum computers may be accessed over the internet. This technology poses a significant risk, since quantum terrorists, or cyber criminals, coul be able to cause many problems, including bringing down the internet. The principles of quantum mechanics might be used by evil doers to destroy quantum information on a global scale, and an entire class of suspicious codes could destroy data or eavesdrop on communication. Quantum physics, however, safeguards against data eavesdropping. A significant amount of money is being invested in developing and testing a quantum version of the internet that will eliminate eavesdropping and make communication nearly impenetrable to cyber-attacks. The simultaneous activation of quantum terrorists (organized crime) can lead to significant danger by attackers introducing quantum information into the network, breaking the global quantum state, and preventing the system from returning to its starting state. Without signs of identifying information and real-time communication data, such vulnerabilities are very hard to discover. Terrorists' synchronized and coordinated acts have an impact on security by sparking a cyber assault in a fraction of a second. The encryption is used by cyber-criminal groups with the genuine, nefarious, and terrible motives of killing innocent people or stealing money. In the hands of criminals and codes, cryptography is a dangerous and formidable weapon. Small amounts of digital information are hidden in a code string that translates into an image on the screen, making it impossible for the human eye to identify a coded picture from its uncoded equivalents. To steal the cryptographic key necessary to read people's credit card data or banking information, cyber thieves employ installed encryption techniques, human mistakes, keyboard loggers, and computer malware. This new volume delves into the latest cutting-edge trends and the most up-to-date processes and applications for quantum computing to bolster cybersecurity. Whether for the veteran computer engineer working in the field, other computer scientists and professionals, or for the student, this is a one-stop-shop for quantum computing in cyber security and a must have for any library.

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

Cover

Table of Contents

Series Page

Title Page

Copyright Page

Preface

1 Cyber Quantum Computing (Security) Using Rectified Probabilistic Packet Mark for Big Data

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Denial-of-Service Attacks

1.3 Related Work

1.4 Proposed Methodology

1.5 Trace Back Mechanism for Rectified Probabilistic Packet Marking

1.6 Conclusion

References

2 Secure Distinctive Data Transmission in Fog System Using Quantum Cryptography

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Properties of Quantum Computing

2.3 Applications of Quantum Computing

2.4 Background

2.5 Literature Survey

2.6 Proposed Work

2.7 Analysis of the Study

2.8 Conclusion

References

3 DDoS Attack and Defense Mechanism in a Server

3.1 Introduction

3.2 DoS Attack

3.3 DDoS Attack

3.4 DDoS Mitigation

3.5 Conclusion

Acknowledgement

References

4 Dark Web Content Classification Using Quantum Encoding

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Related Work

4.3 Proposed Approach

4.4 Result and Discussion

4.5 Conclusion

References

5 Secure E-Voting Scheme Using Blockchain

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Literature Survey

5.3 Implementation and Methodology

5.4 Result Analysis & Output

5.5 Conclusion and Future Directions

References

6 An Overview of Quantum Computing–Based Hidden Markov Models

6.1 Introduction

6.2 Elaboration of Hidden Quantum Markov Model

6.3 Example of HQMMs (Isolated Word Recognition in Action)

6.4 Matching of State Observation Density

6.5 Conclusion and Results

References

7 Artificial Intelligence and Qubit-Based Operating Systems: Current Progress and Future Perspectives

7.1 Introduction to OS, AI and ML

7.2 Learning Configurations

7.3 Building ML Models

7.4 Work Done in Improving Process Scheduling

7.5 Artificial Intelligence in Distributed Operating Systems

7.6 Current Progress

7.7 Quantum Artificial Intelligence

7.8 Conclusion

References

8 Techno-Nationalism and Techno-Globalization: A Perspective from the National Security Act

8.1 Introduction

8.2 Conclusion

Acknowledgement

References

9 Quantum Computing Based on Cybersecurity

9.1 Introduction

9.2 Preliminaries

9.3 Threat Landscape

9.4 Defensive Measurements, Countermeasures, and Best Practises

9.5 Conclusion

References

10 Quantum Cryptography for the Future Internet and the Security Analysis

10.1 Introduction

10.2 Related Works

10.3 Preliminaries

10.4 Quantum Cryptography for Future Internet

10.5 Conclusion

References

11 Security Aspects of Quantum Cryptography

11.1 Introduction

11.2 Literature Survey

11.3 Quantum Key Distribution

11.4 Cryptography

11.5 Quantum Cryptography with Faint Laser Pulses

11.6 Eavesdropping

11.7 Conclusion

References

12 Security Aspects of Quantum Machine Learning: Opportunities, Threats and Defenses

12.1 Introduction

12.2 Quantum Computing Basics

12.3 Security Applications

12.4 Quantum Machine Learning

12.5 Conclusion

References

13 Cyber Forensics and Cybersecurity: Threat Analysis, Research Statement and Opportunities for the Future

13.1 Introduction

13.2 Background

13.3 Scope of this Work

13.4 Methodology and Analysis of Simulation Results

13.5 Quantum-Based Cybersecurity and Forensics

13.6 Conclusion and Future Works

References

14 Quantum Computing: A Software Engineering Approach

14.1 Introduction

14.2 Background of Research Area

14.3 Why Cryptography?

14.4 Classical Cryptography

14.5 Quantum Cryptography (QCr)

14.6 Quantum Key Distribution

14.7 Cryptanalysis

14.8 Entanglement

14.9 Quantum Teleportation

14.10 Applications of QCr in Cybersecurity

14.11 Quantum Key Distribution Protocols Implementation

14.12 Research and Work

14.13 Challenges Faced by QC

14.14 Limitations

14.15 Conclusion

References

15 Quantum Computing to the Advantage of Neural Network

15.1 Introduction

15.2 Significance of Quantum Computers in Machine Learning

15.3 Related Work

15.4 Proposed Methodology

15.5 Result and Analysis

15.6 Conclusion

Glossary

References

16 Image Filtering Based on VQA with Quantum Security

16.1 Introduction

16.2 Related Work

16.3 Problem Statement

16.4 Working

16.5 Proposed Methodology Solution

16.6 Result Analysis

16.7 Conclusion

References

17 Quantum Computing Techniques Assessment and Representation

17.1 Introduction

17.2 Fundamentals of QC

17.3 Properties of QC

17.4 Topography of QC

17.5 The Architecture of QC

17.6 Quantum Algorithm

17.7 Design Limitations of Quantum Computer

17.8 Different Categories of Quantum Computer

17.9 Advantages of QC

17.10 Disadvantages of QC

17.11 Applications of QC

17.12 Major Challenges in QC

17.13 Conclusion

References

18 Quantum Computing Technological Design Along with Its Dark Side

18.1 Introduction

18.2 Related Work

18.3 History and Evolution of QCOM

18.4 Components & Concepts that Make QCOM Possible

18.5 Plans for the Future Development of Quantum Computer

18.6 Dark Side of QCOM

18.7 Plans for Protection in Quantum Era

18.8 Conclusion

References

19 Quantum Technology for Military Applications

19.1 Introduction

19.2 Related Work

19.3 Overview of QTECH

19.4 QTECH in Defence

19.5 Military Applications of QTECH

19.6 Challenges and Consequences of Quantum Warfare

19.7 Conclusion

References

20 Potential Threats and Ethical Risks of Quantum Computing

20.1 Introduction

20.2 Research Design & Methodology

20.3 Brief In-Depth Overview of Possible Vulnerabilities

20.4 New Risks to be Created

20.5 Futuristic Picture of Quantum Ethics

20.6 Conclusion

References

21 Is Quantum Computing a Cybersecurity Threat?

21.1 Introduction

21.2 How QCom Threatens Cybersecurity

21.3 How QCom could Improve Cybersecurity

21.4 Quantum Cryptography and Its Applications

21.5 Proposed Methodology

21.6 Background/Objective

21.7 Conclusion

References

22 Quantum Computing in Data Security: A Critical Assessment

22.1 Introduction

22.2 Present Cryptographic Algorithms and Systems

22.3 Comparing Traditional Computing and Quantum Computing

22.4 Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC)

22.5 Quantum Cryptography and Its Applications

22.6 Corporate Competitions Towards Quantum Computing

22.7 Threats Posed to Critical Infrastructure and Mechanisms

22.8 Conclusion

References

23 Quantum Computing and Security Aspects of Attention-Based Visual Question Answering with Long Short-Term Memory

23.1 Introduction

23.2 Literature Review

23.3 Problem Statement

23.4 Problem Elaboration

23.5 Proposed Methodology

23.6 Methods

23.7 Solution Approach

23.8 Expected Results

23.9 Conclusion

23.10 Abbreviations

References

24 Quantum Cryptography – A Security Architecture

24.1 Introduction

24.2 Related Work

24.3 Properties of Quantum Information

24.4 Methodology

24.5 Supported Explanation

24.6 Conclusion

References

25 Quantum Computing Anomalies in Communication

25.1 Introduction

25.2 Significance of Quantum Computing

25.3 The Dark Side of Quantum Computing

25.4 Previous Works

25.5 Conclusion

References

26 Intrusion Detection System via Classical SVM and Quantum SVM: A Comparative Overview

26.1 Introduction

26.2 Related Work

26.3 Models for IDS

26.4 Conclusion

References

27 Quantum Computing in Military Applications and Operations

27.1 Introduction

27.2 Literary Survey

27.3 Definition

27.4 Quantum Military Applications

27.5 Applications of QCRYP

27.6 Limitations

27.7 Conclusion

References

28 Quantum Cryptography Techniques: Evaluation

28.1 Introduction

28.2 Quantum Technology (QTech) in Defence

28.3 The QKD Model

28.4 Related Work

28.5 Preliminaries

28.6 QKD Protocols Implementation

28.7 Risk Analysis

28.8 Applications of Quantum Cryptography

28.9 Challenges of Quantum Cryptography

28.10 Conclusion and Future Work

References

29 Cyber Crime Attack Vulnerability Review for Quantum Computing

29.1 Introduction

29.2 Significance of Cyber Crime Attack for QC

29.3 Related Work

29.4 Proposed Methodology

29.5 Conclusion

References

About the Editors

Index

Also of Interest

End User License Agreement

List of Tables

Chapter 2

Table 2.1 Algorithm used to generate private key.

Chapter 3

Table 3.1 Traceback methods of DDoS attack.

Table 3.2 DDoS attacks, their effects and solutions [28].

Chapter 4

Table 4.1 Fivefold cross-validation scores for supervised learning models.

Table 4.2 Details of softmax function.

Table 4.3 Dataset samples with data attribute considered for quantum encoding....

Table 4.4 Categorization of the onion services with quantum encoding.

Chapter 6

Table 6.1 Performance characteristics for a speaker independent system.

Chapter 10

Table 10.1 Measurement result.

Chapter 12

Table 12.1 Augmented PCB defect dataset.

Table 12.2 CAE+QNN Architecture performance after 10 Epochs.

Chapter 18

Table 18.1 Evolution of Qubits over the years [10, 11].

Table 18.2 Comparison of investment of different countries in the development ...

Chapter 22

Table 22.1 Comparison of algorithms [1–4].

Chapter 26

Table 26.1 Comparison of different threats in Distributed Control Systems [1, ...

Chapter 29

Table 29.1 Comparison of different studies carried out for detection of differ...

List of Illustrations

Chapter 1

Figure 1.1 DDoS attack.

Figure 1.2 Quantum drones.

Chapter 2

Figure 2.1 Generalized properties of Quantum computation [9].

Figure 2.2 Quantum random walk on a circular walk [17].

Figure 2.3 Merkle tree structure [23].

Figure 2.4 Data security in the system.

Chapter 3

Figure 3.1 Working diagram of DDoS attack.

Figure 3.2 Remote DDoS attack classification.

Figure 3.3 Working of DDoS attack.

Figure 3.4 Cloud intrusion detection system for detecting the attacks [28].

Figure 3.5 Architecture of DDoS attack.

Figure 3.6 Classifications of DDoS attacks.

Chapter 4

Figure 4.1 Proposed methodology.

Figure 4.2 Softmax function.

Figure 4.3 Pseudocode of quantum encoding.

Figure 4.4 Quantum classification variational circuit.

Figure 4.5 Sample onion services.

Figure 4.6 Snapshot of sample cleaned text of onion service.

Figure 4.7 Categorization of different onion services.

Figure 4.8 Time required vs. Batch size of 2,000 onion services.

Figure 4.9 Memory required vs. batch size of 2000 URLs.

Chapter 5

Figure 5.1 Key components of the blockchain architecture.

Figure 5.2 Characteristics of the system.

Figure 5.3 Blockchain voting systems architectural overview.

Figure 5.4 Flow of the election process.

Figure 5.5 Use case diagram of the voting system.

Figure 5.6 npm install.

Figure 5.7 Running it by “node index.js”.

Figure 5.8 Run node index.js in terminal to run the project.

Figure 5.9 Create the smart contracts.

Figure 5.10 Linking Aadhaar card number to your phone number.

Figure 5.11 Testrpc showing the 10 accounts that can be used.

Figure 5.12 Deployment.

Figure 5.13 User registration.

Figure 5.14 Error message.

Figure 5.15 User login.

Figure 5.16 Aadhaar verification.

Figure 5.17 OTP on the user’s Aadhaar linked phone number.

Figure 5.18 Error on wrong OTP.

Figure 5.19 Users casting their votes.

Figure 5.20 Blockchain transactions.

Chapter 6

Figure 6.1 Findings of the hidden coin-tossing test [15, 16].

Figure 6.2 An urn and ball model that demonstrates how a discrete symbol hidde...

Figure 6.3 Different HQMMs are depicted.

Figure 6.4 Connecting multiple contours for the usage of HQMMs for solitary wo...

Figure 6.5 The observed normalised duration density histograms for the 5 state...

Chapter 8

Figure 8.1 Techno-nationalism and techno-globalization.

Figure 8.2 Techno-nationalism concept framework: implications for MNEs.

Chapter 9

Figure 9.1 Architecture of quantum computing.

Chapter 10

Figure 10.1 Quantum direct communication model.

Figure 10.2 Quantum teleportation.

Figure 10.3 Classical communication model.

Figure 10.4 Model of QKD protocol.

Figure 10.5 QKD protocol in noise-free channel.

Figure 10.6 QKD protocol with 30% noise.

Figure 10.7 The effect of eavesdropping on the rate of error.

Figure 10.8 The eavesdropper detects the channel with different probability.

Chapter 11

Figure 11.1 Key distribution pattern of basic quantum [9, 10].

Chapter 12

Figure 12.1 Hybrid quantum-classical architecture as an example.

Figure 12.2 The network architecture of CAE + QNN.

Figure 12.3 (a) Original PCB image of size 600 × 600 (b) Cropped defect image ...

Chapter 13

Figure 13.1 Percentage of businesses compromised by at least one cyberattack....

Figure 13.2 Percentage of organization hit by at least one successful ransomwa...

Chapter 15

Figure 15.1 (a) A qubit state |ψ) represented on a bloch sphere [1, 2]. (b) Ga...

Figure 15.2 Models of conventional and quantum learning are shown schematicall...

Figure 15.3 QC ANN with qubits as nodes of the network using hybrid quantum-cl...

Figure 15.4 Cost vs. number of training steps of Classical ANN and QC ANN usin...

Chapter 16

Figure 16.1 Visual Question Answering [4, 5, 12].

Figure 16.2 Identifying the image [1, 2].

Figure 16.3 RSA internal working [1, 6].

Figure 16.4 Typical RSA algorithm working [6, 7].

Figure 16.5 Visual AI system [5, 6].

Figure 16.6 Image of fingerprint [2, 3, 5–7, 12, 14].

Chapter 17

Figure 17.1 Difference between classical computer and quantum computer [4].

Figure 17.2 Architecture of quantum computing [5].

Chapter 20

Figure 20.1 The difference between traditional computers and quantum computers...

Figure 20.2 The specificity of keywords majorly displayed [7, 8].

Figure 20.3 Potential threats or security vulnerability causes [3, 4].

Figure 20.4 How vulnerability increases as we go down to the stack for differe...

Figure 20.5 How the quantum technologies are being expanded [2, 3].

Chapter 21

Figure 21.1 Symmetric cryptography [1–3].

Figure 21.2 Public key cryptography [4–6].

Figure 21.3 Classical and quantum cryptography [5, 7, 8].

Figure 21.4 Public key cryptography in action [1, 2, 6–8].

Chapter 22

Figure 22.1 Demonstration of classical cryptography [1–4].

Figure 22.2 Circuit for state preparation for 2 qubits and 4-dimensional input...

Figure 22.3 N quantum particle interactions with the environment to implement ...

Figure 22.4 Comparison of various symmetric algorithms [3, 5, 50, 51].

Figure 22.5 Comparison of channels [62, 63].

Chapter 23

Figure 23.1 Att.-based LSTM functioning from label encoding to prediction and ...

Figure 23.2 RW demonstration of VQA system using dual-key-MM BD threats [15]....

Figure 23.3 A simple illustration of visual question answering (VQA) system wo...

Figure 23.4 Overview of a design VAQ MM system with complete PP of BD thefts [...

Figure 23.5 Customer question answer visual to demonstrate problem of E-Commer...

Figure 23.6 Demonstration of BD attack situation initiated by attacker to brea...

Figure 23.7 (a) objective function. (b) VT patches configured with some flower...

Figure 23.8 Demonstration of the internal process of the VQA system with atten...

Chapter 24

Figure 24.1 QCom: basic layout [1–4].

Figure 24.2 Quantum cryptography implementation architecture [20, 21].

Figure 24.3 Quantum ratio: key generation [7, 8].

Figure 24.4 Flow process computing [9, 10].

Figure 24.5 Attackers action over message, using keys [11, 12].

Chapter 25

Figure 25.1 Quantum computing and the future of big data [1, 2].

Figure 25.2 Diving deep into quantum computing [3, 4].

Figure 25.3 Applications of quantum computing [5, 6, 12].

Chapter 26

Figure 26.1 (a) Visualization of Qubits. (b) Visualization of Qubits.

Figure 26.2 Classical SVM separating parameters [16, 17, 19, 20].

Figure 26.3 Q-SVM (Quantum SVM) [1, 2, 15, 17, 18].

Chapter 27

Figure 27.1 Quantum computing model [1, 2].

Figure 27.2 The quantum teleportation [7, 8].

Figure 27.3 Quantum key distribution model [5, 11].

Figure 27.4 Quantum warfare [3, 12, 13].

Figure 27.5 Spending on Qcom by country [14, 15].

Chapter 28

Figure 28.1 Symbols for photons state – 1

st

[1, 2].

Figure 28.2 Symbols for photons state – 2

nd

[3, 4].

Figure 28.3 Quantum key distribution [2, 5–7].

Figure 28.4 Quantum direct communication model [1, 2, 8, 9].

Figure 28.5 Quantum teleportation [1–3, 8, 10, 11].

Figure 28.6 The QKD protocol stack [1, 2, 12–15].

Figure 28.7 The Design Stack [1, 3, 5].

Chapter 29

Figure 29.1 A QC architecture [1, 5].

Figure 29.2 Sources of cybercrime attacks [7–9].

Figure 29.3 Ideal time required to decrypt each algorithm using brute force at...

Figure 29.4 Public key cryptography in action [6, 18].

Figure 29.5 Entire communication process using QKD and classical protocols [6,...

Figure 29.6 Hacker attempting to crack the private key [6].

Figure 29.7 Hacker attempting to retrieve the private key using QC Setup with ...

Figure 29.8 Quantum key distribution server setup [6].

Guide

Cover Page

Series Page

Title Page

Copyright Page

Preface

Table of Contents

Begin Reading

About the Editors

Index

Also of Interest

WILEY END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

Pages

i

iii

iv

xix

xx

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

430

431

432

433

434

435

436

437

438

439

440

441

442

443

444

445

446

447

448

449

450

451

452

453

454

455

456

457

458

459

460

461

462

463

464

465

466

467

468

469

470

471

472

473

474

475

476

477

478

479

480

481

482

483

484

485

486

487

488

489

490

491

492

493

494

495

496

497

498

499

500

501

502

503

504

505

506

507

508

509

510

511

512

Scrivener Publishing100 Cummings Center, Suite 541J Beverly, MA 01915-6106

Publishers at ScrivenerMartin Scrivener ([email protected]) Phillip Carmical ([email protected])

Quantum Computing in Cybersecurity

Edited by

Romil RawatRajesh Kumar ChakrawartiSanjaya Kumar SarangiJaideep PatelVivek BhardwajAnjali Rawat

and

Hitesh Rawat

This edition first published 2023 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA and Scrivener Publishing LLC, 100 Cummings Center, Suite 541J, Beverly, MA 01915, USA© 2023 Scrivener Publishing LLCFor more information about Scrivener publications please visit www.scrivenerpublishing.com.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

Wiley Global Headquarters111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA

For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of WarrantyWhile the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials, or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN 978-1-394-16633-6

Front cover images supplied by Pixabay.comCover design by Russell Richardson

Preface

The main topics of this book are:

Quantum Inspired Community Classification in Social Networks Analytics

Future Directions in Quantum Computing

Quantum Machine Learning for Intrusion Detection

Quantum Designs to Detect Distributed Denial of Service Attacks

Cyber Terrorism for Quantum Internet

Cryptography, and

Cyber Criminals’ Quantum Communication Networks

The security and effectiveness of communications in network infrastructures might be improved by quantum technology in a previously unheard-of way. This book, written as a complete and thorough text, guides readers through mathematically challenging topics in a way that encourages student participation.

In the context of criminality and forensics, this book offers a clear, stepby-step explanation of quantum computing. A deeper comprehension of the human and social dimensions of pertinent complexities, such as child sexual exploitation, violent radicalization, trafficking, disinformation and fake news, corruption, and cyber criminality, as well as victim support, must serve as the foundation for improved cyber-crime prevention, investigation, and remediation. Applications and solutions based on quantum computing that analyse massive volumes of data in near-real time in order to stop criminal activities or combat false information and disinformation while addressing security issues. In order to confront crime, including cybercrime and terrorism as well as various types of serious and organized crime, this will help security agencies incorporate such details into the operating processes of police officials (such as smuggling, money laundering, identity theft, counterfeiting of products, trafficking of illicit drugs and falsified or substandard medicines, environmental crime, or illicit trafficking of cultural goods).

Cybercriminals employ cutting-edge tools, such as machine learning methods, to build and spread deadly malware using vast amounts of data. Cyber attackers can develop a ground-breaking means of evading cyber security by using quantum computing, which would enable them to quickly assess vast datasets before launching a sophisticated attack on several networks and devices.

1Cyber Quantum Computing (Security) Using Rectified Probabilistic Packet Mark for Big Data

Anil V. Turukmane* and Ganesh Khekare

Department of Computer Science Engineering, Parul University, Vadodar, Gujarat, India

Abstract

In recent years, denial-of-service (DoS) assaults have been a system flaw. DoS disobedience testing has become one of the most important streams in system Quantum Computing Security). This dynamic field of investigation has yielded astounding frameworks such as pushback message, ICMP take after back, and following package improvement methods. In tributary regarded informatics, the probabilistic packet marking (PPM) standard drew in considerable thinking. To begin with, the alluring purpose of this informatics follow-up approach is that it permits alterations to etch bound data on ambush packages that support chosen likelihood. After gathering a sufficient number of examined packages, the loss (or information plan centre) will construct a set of systems that offence groups crossed and, as a result, the setback will be assigned zones. The goal of the PPM algorithmic project is to demonstrate that produced outline is the same as offence graph, where relate degree attack outline is that course of action of techniques ambush packs investigated and created outline could be diagrammed by PPM algorithmic framework. The main goal of the structure is to provide a powerful approach to cope with tracking down an assailant’s back IP address through a media like the internet. The system will stamp every shipment that is to be traded over the internet as indicated by the group’s substance and deliver it via trade media. When it reaches its final destination, the stamping of any package is altered, and the structure is ready to be taken. The majority of PPM concerns have entailed a few issues such as loss of stamping information, issues recreating ambush routes, and low precision than on. In the first paper, we propose a dynamic probabilistic packet marking (DPPM) approach as a replacement for another upgrade reasonability of PPM. On the other hand, if you’re utilising mounted checking likelihood, we propose gauging regardless of whether the package has been stamped or not, and then selecting the appropriate checking likelihood. Most of the problems with the PPM approach could be solved using DPPM. A formal examination reveals that DPPM outperforms PPM in a variety of ways. The proposed solution is useful in domains where it is important to keep track of back IP addresses while changing the package, such as cybercrime and the illegal treatment of data groups where certain basic information must be transferred. Propose a P Packet M basic end condition, which is commonly omitted or not explicitly stated in writing. Due to the new end condition, the client of a new control has more freedom to inspect the precision of the chart that has been created.

Keywords: Quantum Computing (Security), Quantum Cryptography and Quantum Computing (Security), control mechanism, cyber crime, quantum attacks

1.1 Introduction

Over the last two decades, the world has seen significant advances in science and innovation that have successfully met a wide spectrum of human needs. These requests range from basic necessities like power bills and rail ticket reservations to more complex ones like force matrices for the era of violence and sharing. These advancements have raised the standard of human existence in terms of modernity and simplicity. Unexpectedly, a competing invention for negotiating Quantum Computing (Security) has evolved, with its own set of repercussions, hindering innovation. Robbery, hacking, and the blackout of private information are examples of information-related attacks. Anonymous subterranean attack networks that can efficiently assault a specific target every time are likely to be available, according to the media and many types of network Quantum Computing (Security) literature. This merely depicts a possible transition from today’s attack to future attacks. Everything is on the table in the present world, from “damage and devastation” wars to “information warfare,” to the negotiation of the aforementioned attack. Finally, attackers/networks that can hide are usually the ones who carry out these attacks.

The scope of attacks on targets is as extensive as that of constructional technology, but this thesis focuses on a specific sort of attack known as denial-of-service (DoS) attacks. DoS assaults are a form of targeted attack whose purpose is to deplete the target’s resources and, as a result, prohibit large customers from obtaining service. For quite some time, great focus has been placed on the Quantum Computing (Security) of network infrastructure, which has continued to be used for a variety of transactions. The internet Quantum Computing (Security) business, academia, and even the United States Conference, which has organized multiple conferences on the subject, have all taken notice [1, 2]. Various safety strategies have been proposed, each attempting to address a different set of issues. The anonymous attack is the specific risk that this research focuses on. Because the Source Address (SA) information is spooled in the attack packages, the identity of the attacker(s) is not immediately visible to the individual in anonymous attacks.

1.2 Denial-of-Service Attacks

The focus of this thesis is on service denial (DoS) attacks on PC networks. The goal of these attacks is to deny legitimate users access to network services. This PhD includes a comprehensive look at many attack and defence mechanisms, as well as unique defensive mechanisms and new information on defensive mechanism selection and evaluation. DoS mitigation is an important part of network and computer Quantum Computing (Security). Network and computer Quantum Computing (Security) are frequently discussed in scientific domains. Computer Quantum Computing (Security) language is still imbalanced, which is a big issue [10, 11]. Computer and network Quantum Computing (Security) were originally prioritised in the mid-1970s, and some of the most meticulous Quantum Computing (Security) documentation was published in [12]. Denial-of-service attacks come in a variety of forms, and the number of them is expanding all the time as new procedures and data networks are developed. These attacks should be divided into two categories: physical and virtual, with the purpose of better comprehending the most common denial-of-service (DoS) attempts (or network-based). There are two other types of attacks that fall within this category, each of which represents the attack’s overall goal: disabling critical services and draining system resources [13].

An Overview of Denial-of-Service Attacks

System disruption (DoS) attacks have been shown to be a significant and long-term threat to users, businesses, and internet infrastructure [16–20]. Blocking access to a specific object, such as a web application, is one of the key targets of these assaults. There have been numerous DoS guards proposed in the literature, but none of them can be trusted with any degree of certainty. Vulnerable hosts on the internet, as well as attack traffic sources, are virtually certain to be exploited. It’s just not possible to keep every host on the internet secure at all times. (In July 2005 it was assessed that there were roughly 350,000 hosts on the internet.) Furthermore, detecting and channelling legitimate traffic attacks without causing legal traffic injury to collateral is quite difficult.

A DoS attack can be carried out in one of two ways: as a flood or as a logical attack. A flood DoS attack is based on brute force. A victim is given as much information as possible, even if it is unneeded. This squandering of network bandwidth fills space with unnecessary data (e.g., spam mail, garbage files, and deliberate error messages), loads flawed data onto fixed-size data structures inside host software, and necessitates a significant amount of data management effort. To increase the impact of DoS attacks, they might continue to be planned from multiple sources (Distributed DoS, DDoS).

1.2.1 DoS Attacks in Real Life

Actual internet DoS instances were investigated throughout the popular era of 1989 to 1995. The three most common consequences were as follows: in 51% of the cases, there was a circle, and in 33% of the cases, there was a network decline of 33%, and in 26% of the cases, certain vital data was deleted. A single occasion can result in a variety of problems (the whole of rates is more than 100%). A college was the target of the first big DDoS attack in August 1999. This attack disabled the target’s network for two days. On February 7, 2000, a few key web-based locations were attacked, and they were cut off from the internet for many hours. These DDoS attacks may occasionally cause a single victim’s assault movement of around 1 Gbit/s.

The quantity, duration, and location of distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks on the internet were tracked using scatter monitoring. Backscatter is defined as the victim’s spontaneous reflex movement in response to the assault package, which is sent with fake IP addresses. In the three weeks of investigation in February 2001, over 12,000 attacks were registered against over 5,000 distinct victims. Packet fragmentation was studied in real networks. Bugs in fragmented management software are exploited in various logic DoS assaults, and the results of this emphasis still suggest the presence of such DoS on the web.

According to the Associated Press, the Emergency Response Team (CERT) Operations Unit was attacked in May 2001. Its portal was down for a few days due to a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack. In the mid-2002, ISPs in the United Kingdom were focusing on DDoS assaults. Some clients experienced a 12-hour outage as a result of one of these attacks. The Domain Name System (DNS) continues to put a focus on DoS threats (DNS). In October 2002, all root name servers were subjected to an exceptionally large DoS attack. Because of the damage produced by the assault, certain DNS requests were unable to reach a root name server. On June 15, 2004, a second DoS attack was launched against the Akamai Content Distribution Network (CDN) name servers, preventing access for nearly two hours. The most influential places were Apple Computer, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo. These companies have outsourced their DNS services to Akamai for service updates.

1.3 Related Work

Denial of service (DoS) attacks have become widely acknowledged as a severe threat to the internet. Threat actors flood a target network with traffic, rendering network services unstable or completely unavailable as a result. It is vital to recognise these assaults in order to prevent them from happening again. To perform this assignment, the exploitability of hidden, simulated, or spoofed exploits must be assessed. In the world of information technology, this is known as an informatics Trace back disadvantage. The use of routers to put self-identifying data into packets travelling down the attack path is how packet marking is done. In PPM routers, packets are labelled with a probability distribution. The amount of tagged packet samples received by a victim node determines its capacity to reconstruct the attack route. We discovered that marked packets from distant routers are highly likely to be noticed by downstream routers when analysing the efficacy of a particular marking chance for all routers in PPM. The overall result will be a drop in the number of packets while there is an increase in the amount of data. By approving each router to regulate the marking chance, a more uniform distribution is achieved. The goal of a dynamic technique is to account for movement while determining the router’s position in the attack path. However, many approaches rely on underlying protocols, necessitating the use of routers to manage data on vast networks regarding potential victims. This increases the router’s overhead and consumes an excessive amount of time. As can be shown in this study, we have a great desire to propose a method that dynamically sets the value of the marking probability depending on the 8-bit TTL field inside the informatics header, which can be accessed directly by routers without the need for external assistance. We may use the projected TTL worth as a technique of determining where along the attack route the packet is placed and derive the marking chance value by using the TTL worth as an estimate of the distance covered by a packet. We created a user-friendly computer that imitated the algorithm by simulating it using a variety of test situations. Our dynamic theme, which rebuilds the attack path with more precision while consuming fewer resources at the router and at the target, is successful. The expected theme’s main advantages are its simplicity and low router overhead, but a lot of value may be gained by adopting dynamic ways that produce similar outcomes and outperform static approaches across a wide attack range.

1.3.1 Probabilistic Packet Marking (PPM)

New approaches have the potential to increase network overhead, router processing, and node processing. There have been various solutions that have gotten a lot of attention in recent years, including the use of probabilistic packet marking (PPM). Introduce an Associate Degree in this area to expand on the probabilistic packet marking theme, which drastically reduces the number of packets needed to reconstruct the attacker’s route.

1.3.1.1 DoS Attacks

Denial-of-service (DoS) attacks may prove to be a serious stumbling block to network connectivity. Some denial-of-service attacks can be avoided if the spoof IP address is reflected back to its original source, allowing the perpetrators to be punished or research into the attack to be done. To fight denial-of-service attacks, IP trace back algorithms are designed to allow for probabilistic packet marking (PPM).

When compared to selected packet marking and electronic messaging schemes—which can be difficult to trace back due to the attacker spoofing the marking field in the packet—Kihong Park et al. [1] have planned that probabilistic packet marking—of interest due to its potency and implementation ability—will confer a significant return on investment (ROI) on the victim. Unlike prior study, which found a trade-off between the victim’s ability to locate the attacker and the intensity of the DoS attack, which was modelled as a function of the marking chance, route length, and traffic volume, our findings show the inverse relationship: that a low-resource attacker can successfully undertake a distributed denial-of-service attack against a larger target. Minimax problems are the only way to mathematically express this problem. To put it another way, the victim will choose the marking chance, reducing the number of forgeable assault ways available, be focused in a dispersed DoS attack, improving the attacker’s capabilities and reducing PPM’s impact. Increasing the marking probability shows that the attacker’s ability to disguise his location is limited, but it also shows that the attacker’s ability to conceal his position is limited due to sampling limits. Because attackers in normal IP internets would have addresses in two to five equally likely locations, PPM’s effectiveness against a single-supply attack is significantly boosted. In a distributed DoS attack, the attacker’s uncertainties are concentrated, improving the attacker’s capabilities and reducing the effect of PPM.

1.3.1.2 FDPM

According to Yang Xiang et al. [2], a unique strategy called flexible deterministic packet marking (FDPM) has been proposed for dealing with large-scale IP trace back assaults, which could be effective in the future in minimising DDoS attacks. During a DDoS assault, the target site or network was continually blasted with fraudulent IP packets from several sources. An IP trace back technique allows you to trace IP packets back to their source (in a somewhat modest manner). FDPM improves packet tracing by offering a number of adjustable options for tracing IP packets, including probabilistic packet marking (PPM) and deterministic packet marking (DPM) (DPM). The FDPM’s adaptation choices included the following. It might, for example, increase the length of the marking field in relation to the network protocols currently in use; alternatively, it could decrease the marking rate in relation to the traffic load on the collaborating routers. Because of its use of and display, the FDPM ensures that packet distribution is kept to a minimum in the event of a trace back; for example, it may retrieve up to 110,000 devices from a single incident response. It is possible that even if this page is very heavily loaded, it will still be able to perform a trace back method because of the built-in overload interference mechanism.

1.3.1.3 Simulation Surroundings via Extending ns2

The development of simulation environments and methodologies for measuring the time it takes to trace IP addresses back under a variety of network conditions and malicious attack patterns is critical. A comparison of various PPM (Probabilistic Packet Marking) algorithms is provided, as well as metrics such as the number of packets required to rebuild the attacker route, computational quality, and false positives.

To simulate various PPM approaches, Li et al. [3] use an expansion of ns2 along with offensive topology and traffic. The simulation technique can also be used to test the effects of simulated DDoS attacks on various PPM systems. According to the simulation and analysis results, many of PPM’s error-prone elements were in the works, which might help speed up the process of detecting intellectual property infringement.

1.4 Proposed Methodology

Dynamic Probabilistic Packet Marking

Loss of marking information, difficulty reconstructing the attack path, low precision, and other concerns are among the most prevalent repercussions of Probabilistic Packet Marking (PPM). This study utilises a replacement technique (DPPM), which improves the primary prevention method’s (PPM) performance even more. Rather than recommending a fixed likelihood of marking, we recommend first determining whether the packet has been marked, and then selecting the most acceptable marking probability from the available possibilities. The adoption of DPPM may be able to resolve the majority of PPM’s technical difficulties. DPPM outperforms PPM in the majority of areas, with one exception. As a result of widespread use of public computers and the expansion of network infrastructure, the internet has had a huge impact on modern living, as well as social and economic sectors. Criminal behaviour has become increasingly common, resulting in significant financial losses. The incredibly easy-to-conduct distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack has caused havoc on communication infrastructure. Monitoring technology for Internet Protocol (IP) can be used to track the delivery of evidence needed to remedy an assault.

A denial of service (DoS) attack is an attempt to prevent a web-based programme from serving its intended clients, either momentarily by suspending or shutting down the service, or permanently by rendering the application unworkable. A distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) occurs when an attack supply exceeds a single, and in certain cases, multiple information science addresses, as shown in Figure 1.1. In the sense that no customers have come or created disturbances to corporate activities, the front door of a shop or corporation is akin to a gathering of people.

1.4.1 Denial of Service

A denial-of-service (DoS) attack is one that delays or restricts the flow of resources. Denial-of-service attacks can also be triggered by human errors, aesthetic defects, or computer code vulnerabilities. Another example of inappropriate resource utilisation is delays in time-sensitive tasks. During this defining area, there are samples of resource measurement, process capacity, disc space and memory, and static memory structures. In the ANSI 2000 medium gloss, an attack (that should not succeed) is referred as a Quantum (Security) violation. Since the foundation for a DoS attack has been laid, this can be used.

Figure 1.1 DDoS attack.

1.4.1.1 Direct DDoS Attacks

A large number of supply hosts try to prevent victims from consuming resources or deny victims access to resources while attack traffic is sent. An associate degree agent is a hacked server that is used to send attack traffic in connection with a DDoS attack (also known as a daemon, zombie, or bot). A master is an out-of-date group of agents who have been labelled as such. A DDoS network is made up of a collection of linked master agents that are all geared up to help the attacker during DDoS attacks. Direct DDoS assaults and reflector attacks are two types of distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks.

1.4.1.2 Distributed DDoS Attacks

The attack is frequently delayed as a result of many supply hosts attempting to shut down or tamper with resources given by victims at the same time that assault traffic is being sent. During a DDoS attack, a hijacked host is utilised to transmit attack traffic. A master is a compromised host operation with an out-of-date collection of agents. In the context of a DDoS attack, a DDoS network is defined as a hierarchical collection of linked master agents that helps an attacker organise a DDoS attack with less effort. Reflectors and direct hits are two types of DDoS attacks.

1.4.1.3 Reflector DDoS Attacks

Within the field of supply science, packets containing victims’ addresses are supplied to unsuspecting third parties by slave zombies (agents), who successively send a reply to the victim (uninfected computers such as web servers, DNS servers, etc.). (Inundate the victim) a Reflector assault can affect at least two persons. Because of the additional equipment required and the larger bandwidth involved, a reflected assault will be far more devastating. It is also more difficult to keep track of.

1.5 Trace Back Mechanism for Rectified Probabilistic Packet Marking

The internet captures some or all of many crucial and essential services such as banking, commerce, transportation, healthcare, and communication. According to current figures, there are approximately 400 million hosts connected to the internet, and there are currently more than 4 billion internet users. As a result, any network outage could be extremely inconvenient for a large number of individuals. The devastating effects of a DoS attack have drawn the attention of scientists and researchers, resulting in a variety of traumatic processes. The majority of attacks on highly distributed DoS systems that require thousands of compromised PCs, on the other hand, fail. A critical phase in the defence against a Denial-of-Service (DoS) assault is to trace back scientific discipline.

The packet marking technique is used to encrypt the edges data of packets inside routers in a random manner. After that, the victim uses the rehabilitation method to construct the attack path via knowing victimisation. In the past, several traceback procedures in scientific areas were planned. The approach of Probabilistic Packet Marking (PPM) was primarily studied. In an extremely PPM technique, the router probabilistically stamps the packets with its identifying data, allowing the destination to recreate the network path by combining several packets with similar features. The PPM rule has various issues in the existing system because the termination condition is not explicitly specified. It is necessary to have the necessary configuration information.

1.5.1 A Brief Review of the Packet Marking Procedure

A DoS (Denial-of-Service) attack [4–6], in which a health care helper seeks to build a target host (dubbed a victim) [7, 8] due to the host’s large range of packets [9], could be one of the most serious threats to web Quantum Computing [14, 15] (Security). In recent years, DDoS (Distributed Denialof-Service) attacks have become commonplace anywhere there are many attackers on the internet. From one stage on the Caregiver Path to the next, we set the course of this Associate in the Caregiver Package. IP traceback is a defence mechanism against DoS/DDoS attacks. Every router attacks information about methods to store information about itself or packets in IP traceback systems. The victim then uses the information to track down the offenders. IP traceback systems classify square packet marking (DPM) into two categories: probabilistic (Short PPM) methods and practical packet markings. In PPM protocols, every router almost certainly writes path information on the packets it receives. The IP trace back protocols, on the other hand, generate all collaboration sample packets from routers and store path information on their own. PPM and working methods have a number of benefits. The Figure 1.2 shows about the quantum drones framework.

Figure 1.2 Quantum drones.

1.5.2 Packet Marking

PPM does not demand router storage resources, although it typically needs the victim to receive an outsize packet before the attack tree is rebuilt. On the other hand, the quantity of packets for attack tree recovery in work schemes may be low. Work plans nevertheless need considerable load and huge cabinet space on routers. Now, for a current example of traceback information processing protocols let us consider the addition RIHT: a hybrid information processing traceback theme with a p.mark value is computed to find out the packet flow and to look for an attack. This technique takes an outsized amount of calculation into account that requires intense time.

1.5.3 Path Selection

The path describes how the specified packet or file should be delivered from the delivery point to the destination. The upstream interfaces of all routers must be detected and stored in the interface table. The interface table can be used to describe the selected supply and destination.

1.5.4 Packet Sending

In packet or file processing, packet delivery occurs as follows: the packet travels from the source LAN to the destination LAN through the route provided. When the packet is received by the destination LAN, it is checked to see if it has been delivered.

1.5.5 Packet Marking and Logging

On each packet header, a five-bit section is styled as a counter. In our example, if a router decides to sample a packet P with a specific probability, P.counter is set to one, some data is saved on the router, and the packet is finally sent to a neighbouring router. As a result, the higher the counter value, the more routers in the attack path will store P data. In other words, after the attack tree is recovered, a packet with an over-dimensional counter value is favourable. As a result, if we tend to probabilistically prefer a packet with a higher counter worth to a packet with a lower counter worth to a packet with a lower counter worth to a packet with a higher counter worth to a packet with a higher counter worth to a packet with a higher counter.

1.5.6 Path Reconstruction

When employing Formula 3, after the packet reaches its destination, it checks to determine if it was broadcast from the right upstream interfaces. If an assault is detected, the assault will attempt to reconstruct the route. Path reconstruction is the process of discovering a new path for continuous supply and, as a result, a destination that cannot be attacked.

Every significant network attack now includes a DoS or DDoS attack. Although it is relatively easy to die, it may cause significant damage. DoS attacks, which consume a large amount of system resources, render conventional services unusable for genuine consumers. While e-mail has become the most popular mode of communication, DDoS attacks are becoming more common.

Lee and Fung demonstrate how a DoS attack can be carried out utilising an authentication approach based primarily on public-key activity. Many alternative defences against DoS attacks are being considered. Su et al. devised an internet strategy based on initial features from estimated sources of associated attack traffic in order to limit the DDoS attack’s harm.

Huang et al. planned to use associative reward, cooperative filtering, and cooperative caching to help victims of DDoS attacks. As a result, the location of the assault supply would be crucial. Because the supply address is not removed after the router sends a packet to the current protocol, we choose not to accept the supply address in the scientific discipline header of the attack packet.

1.6 Conclusion

A good package marking strategy can cut down on the number of packages needed to trace the victorious path and shorten the time it takes to identify the wrongdoer’s genuine supply. There are two sorts of packet marking techniques: static probability marking and dynamic probability theme. We do not always acquire enough tagged packets from faraway routers in PPM, which causes a lot of problems in the IP track and extends the time it takes to reconstruct the victim. Our goal in developing a dynamic probability replacement method was to generate a high enough number of tagged packets from remote routers in a short amount of time in order to perform a faster and more reliable trace back.

References

1. S. E. Cross, “Cyber Quantum Computing (Quantum Computing (Security),” Testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mar. 2000.

2. R. D. Pethia, “Computer Quantum Computing (Quantum Computing (Security),” Testimony before the Committee on Government Reform, Mar. 2000.

3. S. Gibson, “DRDoS: Distributed reflector denial of service,” Gibson Research Corporation,” Technical Report, Feb. 2002.

4. Rawat, R. (2023). Logical concept mapping and social media analytics relating to cyber criminal activities for ontology creation.

International Journal of Information Technology

, 15(2), 893-903.

5. Rawat, R., Mahor, V., Álvarez, J. D., & Ch, F. (2023). Cognitive Systems for Dark Web Cyber Delinquent Association Malignant Data Crawling: A Review.

Handbook of Research on War Policies, Strategies, and Cyber Wars

, 45-63.

6. Rawat, R., Chakrawarti, R. K., Vyas, P., Gonzáles, J. L. A., Sikarwar, R., & Bhardwaj, R. (2023). Intelligent Fog Computing Surveillance System for Crime and Vulnerability Identification and Tracing.

International Journal of Information Security and Privacy (IJISP)

, 17(1), 1-25.

7. Rawat, R., Sowjanya, A. M., Patel, S. I., Jaiswal, V., Khan, I., & Balaram, A. (Eds.). (2022).

Using Machine Intelligence: Autonomous Vehicles Volume 1

. John Wiley & Sons.

8. Rawat, R., Bhardwaj, P., Kaur, U., Telang, S., Chouhan, M., & Sankaran, K. S. (2023).

Smart Vehicles for Communication, Volume 2. John Wiley & Sons

.

9. Mahor, V., Bijrothiya, S., Rawat, R., Kumar, A., Garg, B., & Pachlasiya, K. (2023). IoT and Artificial Intelligence Techniques for Public Safety and Security.

Smart Urban Computing Applications

, 111.

10. M. Andrews and J. A. Whittaker, “Computer Quantum Computing (Quantum Computing (Security)),”

IEEE Quantum Computing (Security) & Privacy

, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 68–71, Sept./Oct. 2004.

11. M. Bishop, “What is computer Quantum Computing (Security

),” IEEE Quantum Computing (Security) & Privacy

, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 67–69, Jan/Feb 2003.

12. M. Bishop, “Early computer Quantum Computing (Quantum Computing (Security)) papers, part 1,” 1998. [Online]. Available:

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/history/index.html

[accessed Jan. 3, 2006].

13. E. Skoudis.

CounterHack. A Step-by-Step Guide to Computer Attacks and Effective Defenses

. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002.

14. Mahor, V., Pachlasiya, K., Garg, B., Chouhan, M., Telang, S., & Rawat, R. (2022, June). Mobile Operating System (Android) Vulnerability Analysis Using Machine Learning. In

Proceedings of International Conference on Network Security and Blockchain Technology: ICNSBT 2021

(pp. 159-169). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.

15. AusCERT, “2005 Australian computer crime and Quantum Computing (Quantum Computing (Security) survey,” Australian Computer Emergency Response Team, Tech. Rep., 2005. [Online]. Available:

http://www.auscert.org.au/crimesurvey

[accessed Jan. 4, 2006].

16. N. Brownlee, K. C. Claffy, and E. Nemeth, “DNS measurements at a root server,” in

Proceedings of the IEEE GlobeCom, San Antonio, USA, Nov. 2001

.

17. CERT Coordination Center, “Results of the Distributed-Systems Intruder Tools Workshop,” Nov. 1999.

18. L. Garber, “Denial-of-service attacks rip the Internet,”

IEEE Computer

, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 12–17, Apr. 2000.

19. Mahor, V., Garg, B., Telang, S., Pachlasiya, K., Chouhan, M., & Rawat, R. (2022, June). Cyber Threat Phylogeny Assessment and Vulnerabilities Representation at Thermal Power Station. In

Proceedings of International Conference on Network Security and Blockchain Technology: ICNSBT 2021

(pp. 28-39). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.

20. K. J. Houle, G. M. Weaver, N. Long, and R. Thomas, “Trends in denial of service attack technology,” CERT Coordination Center, Tech. Rep., Oct. 2001.

Note

*

Corresponding author

:

[email protected]

2Secure Distinctive Data Transmission in Fog System Using Quantum Cryptography

Ambika N.

Department of Computer Science and Applications, St. Francis College, Bangalore, India

Abstract