DATESSO: Self-Adapting Service Composition with Debt-Aware Two Levels Constraint Reasoning

The rapidly changing workload of service-based systems can easily cause under-/over-utilization on the component services, which can consequently affect the overall Quality of Service (QoS), such as latency. Self-adaptive services composition rectifies this problem, but poses several challenges: (i) the effectiveness of adaptation can deteriorate due to over-optimistic assumptions on the latency and utilization constraints, at both local and global levels; and (ii) the benefits brought by each composition plan is often short term and is not often designed for long-term benefits -- a natural prerequisite for sustaining the system. To tackle these issues, we propose a two levels constraint reasoning framework for sustainable self-adaptive services composition, called DATESSO. In particular, DATESSO consists of a re ned formulation that differentiates the "strictness" for latency/utilization constraints in two levels. To strive for long-term benefits, DATESSO leverages the concept of technical debt and time-series prediction to model the utility contribution of the component services in the composition. The approach embeds a debt-aware two level constraint reasoning algorithm in DATESSO to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of self-adaptive service composition. We evaluate DATESSO on a service-based system with real-world WS-DREAM dataset and comparing it with other state-of-the-art approaches. The results demonstrate the superiority of DATESSO over the others on the utilization, latency and running time whilst likely to be more sustainable.Comment: Accepted to the SEAMS '20. Please use the following citation: Satish Kumar, Tao Chen, Rami Bahsoon, and Rajkumar Buyya. DATESSO: Self-Adapting Service Composition with Debt-Aware Two Levels Constraint Reasoning. In IEEE/ACM 15th International Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems, Oct 7-8, 2020, Seoul, Kore

Developing Experimental Models for NASA Missions with ASSL

NASA's new age of space exploration augurs great promise for deep space exploration missions whereby spacecraft should be independent, autonomous, and smart. Nowadays NASA increasingly relies on the concepts of autonomic computing, exploiting these to increase the survivability of remote missions, particularly when human tending is not feasible. Autonomic computing has been recognized as a promising approach to the development of self-managing spacecraft systems that employ onboard intelligence and rely less on control links. The Autonomic System Specification Language (ASSL) is a framework for formally specifying and generating autonomic systems. As part of long-term research targeted at the development of models for space exploration missions that rely on principles of autonomic computing, we have employed ASSL to develop formal models and generate functional prototypes for NASA missions. This helps to validate features and perform experiments through simulation. Here, we discuss our work on developing such missions with ASSL.Comment: 7 pages, 4 figures, Workshop on Formal Methods for Aerospace (FMA'09

Autonomic computing meets SCADA security

© 2017 IEEE. National assets such as transportation networks, large manufacturing, business and health facilities, power generation, and distribution networks are critical infrastructures. The cyber threats to these infrastructures have increasingly become more sophisticated, extensive and numerous. Cyber security conventional measures have proved useful in the past but increasing sophistication of attacks dictates the need for newer measures. The autonomic computing paradigm mimics the autonomic nervous system and is promising to meet the latest challenges in the cyber threat landscape. This paper provides a brief review of autonomic computing applications for SCADA systems and proposes architecture for cyber security

Autonomic Computing

Modern networks offer end-to-end connectivity however; the increasing amount of traditional offered services may still not fulfill the requirements of ever demanding distributed applications and must therefore be enriched by some form of increased intelligence in the network. This is where the promise of autonomous systems comes into play. Paul Horn of IBM Research first suggested the idea of autonomic computing on 15 October 2001 at the Agenda conference in Arizona. The need centers around the exponential growth of networking complexity. Autonomous systems are capable of performing activities by taking into account the local environment and adapting to it. No planning is required hence autonomous systems simply have to make the best of the resources at hand. Locality in this scenario is no longer geographical but rather the information and applications on the boundary of the autonomic communicating element which may be distributed over a wide area. The most common definition of an autonomic computing system is one which can control the functioning of computer applications and systems without input from the user, in the same way that the autonomic nervous system regulates body systems without conscious input from the individual. Thus, we attempt here to more clearly identify the need for autonomous systems, their architecture, the path of evolution from traditional network elements and the future of such systems.</jats:p

Autonomic Computing

Autonomic computing (AC) has as its vision the creation of self-managing systems to address today’s con-cerns of complexity and total cost of ownership while meeting tomorrow’s needs for pervasive and ubiquitous computation and communication. This paper reports on the latest auto-nomic systems research and technologies to influence the industry; it looks behind AC, summarising what it is, the current state-of-the-art research, related work and initiatives, highlights research and technology transfer issues and concludes with further and recommended reading

Autonomic computing architecture for SCADA cyber security

Cognitive computing relates to intelligent computing platforms that are based on the disciplines of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and other innovative technologies. These technologies can be used to design systems that mimic the human brain to learn about their environment and can autonomously predict an impending anomalous situation. IBM first used the term ‘Autonomic Computing’ in 2001 to combat the looming complexity crisis (Ganek and Corbi, 2003). The concept has been inspired by the human biological autonomic system. An autonomic system is self-healing, self-regulating, self-optimising and self-protecting (Ganek and Corbi, 2003). Therefore, the system should be able to protect itself against both malicious attacks and unintended mistakes by the operator

To What Extent Are Honeypots and Honeynets Autonomic Computing Systems?

Cyber threats, such as advanced persistent threats (APTs), ransomware, and zero-day exploits, are rapidly evolving and demand improved security measures. Honeypots and honeynets, as deceptive systems, offer valuable insights into attacker behavior, helping researchers and practitioners develop innovative defense strategies and enhance detection mechanisms. However, their deployment involves significant maintenance and overhead expenses. At the same time, the complexity of modern computing has prompted the rise of autonomic computing, aiming for systems that can operate without human intervention. Recent honeypot and honeynet research claims to incorporate autonomic computing principles, often using terms like adaptive, dynamic, intelligent, and learning. This study investigates such claims by measuring the extent to which autonomic principles principles are expressed in honeypot and honeynet literature. The findings reveal that autonomic computing keywords are present in the literature sample, suggesting an evolution from self-adaptation to autonomic computing implementations. Yet, despite these findings, the analysis also shows low frequencies of self-configuration, self-healing, and self-protection keywords. Interestingly, self-optimization appeared prominently in the literature. While this study presents a foundation for the convergence of autonomic computing and deceptive systems, future research could explore technical implementations in sample articles and test them for autonomic behavior. Additionally, investigations into the design and implementation of individual autonomic computing principles in honeypots and determining the necessary ratio of these principles for a system to exhibit autonomic behavior could provide valuable insights for both researchers and practitioners.Comment: 18 pages, 3 figures, 5 table

Exploring adaptation & self-adaptation in autonomic computing systems

This panel paper sets out to discuss what self-adaptation means, and to explore the extent to which current autonomic systems exhibit truly self-adaptive behaviour. Many of the currently cited examples are clearly adaptive, but debate remains as to what extent they are simply following prescribed adaptation rules within preset bounds, and to what extent they have the ability to truly learn new behaviour. Is there a standard test that can be applied to differentiate? Is adaptive behaviour sufficient anyway? Other autonomic computing issues are also discussed