These lists identify the anomalies corrected in FactoryTalk Updater version 2.00.00 and the known anomalies found during testing or reported by customers for this release. Use the identification information provided in the brackets  to track an anomaly in future releases or to request assistance from Customer Support with a related issue.
The Serializable isolation level provides the strictest transaction isolation. This level emulates serial transaction execution for all committed transactions; as if transactions had been executed one after another, serially, rather than concurrently. However, like the Repeatable Read level, applications using this level must be prepared to retry transactions due to serialization failures. In fact, this isolation level works exactly the same as Repeatable Read except that it also monitors for conditions which could make execution of a concurrent set of serializable transactions behave in a manner inconsistent with all possible serial (one at a time) executions of those transactions. This monitoring does not introduce any blocking beyond that present in repeatable read, but there is some overhead to the monitoring, and detection of the conditions which could cause a serialization anomaly will trigger a serialization failure.
Predicate locks in PostgreSQL, like in most other database systems, are based on data actually accessed by a transaction. These will show up in the pg_locks system view with a mode of SIReadLock. The particular locks acquired during execution of a query will depend on the plan used by the query, and multiple finer-grained locks (e.g., tuple locks) may be combined into fewer coarser-grained locks (e.g., page locks) during the course of the transaction to prevent exhaustion of the memory used to track the locks. A READ ONLY transaction may be able to release its SIRead locks before completion, if it detects that no conflicts can still occur which could lead to a serialization anomaly. In fact, READ ONLY transactions will often be able to establish that fact at startup and avoid taking any predicate locks. If you explicitly request a SERIALIZABLE READ ONLY DEFERRABLE transaction, it will block until it can establish this fact. (This is the only case where Serializable transactions block but Repeatable Read transactions don't.) On the other hand, SIRead locks often need to be kept past transaction commit, until overlapping read write transactions complete.
Abstract:According to a study by Cybersecurity Ventures, cybercrime is expected to cost $6 trillion annually by 2021. Most cybersecurity threats access internal networks through infected endpoints. Recently, various endpoint environments such as smartphones, tablets, and Internet of things (IoT) devices have been configured, and security issues caused by malware targeting them are intensifying. Event logs-based detection technology for endpoint security is detected using rules or patterns. Therefore, known attacks can respond, but unknown attacks can be difficult to respond to immediately. To solve this problem, in this paper, local outlier factor (LOF) and Autoencoder detect suspicious behavior that deviates from normal behavior. It also detects threats and shows the corresponding threats when suspicious events corresponding to the rules created through the attack profile are constantly occurring. Experimental results detected eight new suspicious processes that were not previously detected, and four malicious processes and one suspicious process were judged using Hybrid Analysis and VirusTotal. Based on the experiment results, it is expected that the use of operational policies such as allowlists in the proposed model will significantly improve performance by minimizing false positives.Keywords: anomaly detection; endpoint security; local outlier factor; AutoEncoder; anomaly score; attack profile
In contrast to signature-based IDS, anomaly-based IDS looks for the kinds of unknown attacks signature-based IDS finds hard to detect. Due to the rapid growth in malware and attack types, anomaly-based IDS uses machine learning approaches to compare models of trustworthy behavior with new behavior. As a result, strange- or unusual-looking anomalies or behavior will be flagged. However, previously unknown, but legitimate, behavior can be accidentally flagged as well and depending on the response, this can cause some problems.
In addition, anomaly-based IDS assumes network behavior always stays predictable and it can be simple to tell good traffic from bad. But anomaly-based IDS looks at the behavior of traffic, not the payload, and if a network is running on a non-standard configuration, the IDS can have problems figuring out which traffic to flag.
However, anomaly-based IDS is good for determining when someone is probing or sweeping a network prior to the attack taking place. Even these sweeps or probes create signals in the network the anomaly-based IDS will pick up on. This type of IDS needs to be more distributed across the network, and the machine learning processes need to be guided and trained by an administrator.
Stealthwatch also uses analytics and machine learning to detect threats before they become an issue via anomaly detection. Any anomalies discovered are further analyzed with machine learning techniques and correlation with the local-to-global threat information. This combination allows organizations to detect unknown or encrypted malware, insider threats, and policy violations.
Zeek has two separate tools as part of the signature analysis and anomaly detection. First, the event engine looks for events capable of triggering an alert, including HTTP requests and new TCP connections. All these events are logged and provide a list you can look at later to see if the actions themselves are normal, but the amount or frequency is suspicious. Like other tools, the second part of Zeek uses policy scripts. These scripts can be customized but generally use anomaly detection, signature matching, and connection analysis processes.
As far as the anomaly is concerned, I am not really convinced, just grabbing at straws here.It would appear to be something to do with a header file called twice by the looks of it. Normally I #ifdef my own files so that this could not happen. 041b061a72