A Blockchained AutoML Network Traffic Analyzer to Industrial Cyber Defense and Protection

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Clearly state your objective, main contribution and research problem in the introduction part. 

The Section of Related Works concludes as the final conclusions of the paper. Just 4 references provides review of the other works, done in this research field. A strong extention of the literature review is needed.

The captions of figure 1, figure 3 is dropped in other page.

The abbrevations, mentioned in lines 699, 700, 734, 791, 822 should be placed in the end of the paper.

Section for the discussion is missing. Some parts, mentioned in the Conclusions can be written as part of the discussion. 

The abstract is too long, it looks more as introduction than the abstract. The main problem, objective, methods, results and recommendations should be mentioned in the abstract.

Ref. 18, 19, 20 are self-citations of the authors's papers, which are fairly superficially related with the proposed solution in this work.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We want to thank the reviewer for their insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which helped us significantly improve the manuscript. For clarity, we have uploaded a copy of the original manuscript with all changes highlighted. Our point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments is attached to this letter. The comments are reproduced, and our answers follow in a different color (red) immediately after. We would also like to express our gratitude for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript.

 

1. Clearly state your objective, main contribution and research problem in the introduction part.

A-1. Thank you for this helpful comment. The introduction was rearranged based on your suggestions.

2. The Section of Related Works concludes as the final conclusions of the paper. Just 4 references provides review of the other works, done in this research field. A strong extention of the literature review is needed.

A-2. Thank you for this comment. The Related Works section was rearranged based on your comments.

3. The captions of figure 1, figure 3 is dropped in other page.

A-3. We adjusted the placement of the figures in the document to keep the figures and their captions on the same page. Thank you for your careful reading.

4. The abbrevations, mentioned in lines 699, 700, 734, 791, 822 should be placed in the end of the paper.

A-4. Thank you for this comment. All abbreviations used in the text are included at the end of the paper. This will help ensure readers can easily find the definitions they need to understand the paper.

5. Section for the discussion is missing. Some parts, mentioned in the Conclusions can be written as part of the discussion.

A-5. Thank you for your feedback. In the revised version of the paper, we have added the discussion section, incorporating some of the key points from the conclusion.

6. The abstract is too long, it looks more as introduction than the abstract. The main problem, objective, methods, results and recommendations should be mentioned in the abstract.

Α-6 Thank you for your remarks. The abstract was rearranged based on your comments and suggestions.

7. 18, 19, 20 are self-citations of the authors's papers, which are fairly superficially related with the proposed solution in this work.

A-7. I appreciate your alert. Each cited reference has a specific function in bolstering our case or advancing knowledge on the subject. These self-citations, in our opinion, are pertinent to and appropriate for the cited publication. Specifically, the research idea for the entire project is based on these preliminary findings, which significantly impact the validity and quality of the research presented. Respecting your opinion, we removed the two and kept the most important reference, which is the basic idea, an extension of which is a part of this architecture.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Summary: This article describes the Blockchained AutoML Network Traffic Analyzer (BANTA). It is a blockchain-based solution for automated network traffic analysis that protects privacy with features like multiple signatures and different levels of privacy. The system keeps track of network traffic logs in a safe, decentralized way, so they can be looked at by anyone and everyone. Smart contracts are used to automate the process of analyzing network traffic. A multi-signature method is used to make sure the system is safe, secure, and reliable.   Comments and Suggestions: - The article covers an interesting topic, and the obtained results are promising.   - The abstract is a bit long and needs to be shortened.    - The authors need to emphasize their contribution in the abstract.   - In addition, the authors need to insert a list of short sentences which summarize the main contributions of the paper.   - The authors may also insert a new figure between the first and second sections which illustrates graphically the proposed approach.   - The related section has to be summarized in tabular form.   - In order to emphasize the uniqueness of their contribution, the authors must identify the limitations of existing related works.   - The authors are invited to include a short paragraph about  the use of formal methods for the verification of smart contracts.

- For this purpose, the authors are invited to consider the following interesting reference (and others):
1. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9970534

2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1574119220300821    - Line 203: the authors need to recall the meaning of the abbreviation "CTI2SA"   - The authors need to argue more about the choice of this architecture.   - Are there other types of architectures that may be used?   - Figure 1: Some words are written in a very small font.   - Please indicate the source of this figure.   - Line 312: "The blockchain architecture [18]–[20] is a distributed" ===> Please avoid exaggerated self-citation.   - There are two Figures numbered 1.   - Page 10: The smart contract may be moved to the appendix.   - The figure on page 12 needs to be improved.   - Figure 2 is of low quality and needs improvement too.   - The conclusion is too long and needs to be shortened.   - The authors need to identify the limitations of their work and propose more future work directions.        

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We want to thank the reviewer for their insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which helped us significantly improve the manuscript. For clarity, we have uploaded a copy of the original manuscript with all changes highlighted. Our point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments is attached to this letter. The comments are reproduced, and our answers follow in a different color (red) immediately after. We would also like to express our gratitude for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript.

Summary: This article describes the Blockchained AutoML Network Traffic Analyzer (BANTA). It is a blockchain-based solution for automated network traffic analysis that protects privacy with features like multiple signatures and different levels of privacy. The system keeps track of network traffic logs in a safe, decentralized way, so they can be looked at by anyone and everyone. Smart contracts are used to automate the process of analyzing network traffic. A multi-signature method is used to make sure the system is safe, secure, and reliable.  

Comments and Suggestions:

- The article covers an interesting topic, and the obtained results are promising.

Α-Thank you for your careful reading.  

 - The abstract is a bit long and needs to be shortened. 

Α-Thank you for your remarks. The abstract was rearranged based on your comments and suggestions.

- The authors need to emphasize their contribution in the abstract.  

Α-Thank you for your remarks. The abstract was rearranged based on your comments and suggestions.

- In addition, the authors need to insert a list of short sentences which summarize the main contributions of the paper.  

Α-Thank you for your remarks. The introduction was rearranged based on your comments and suggestions.

- The authors may also insert a new figure between the first and second sections which illustrates graphically the proposed approach.  

Α-Thank you for your feedback. In the revised manuscript, the architecture of the proposed scheme is depicted in figures 2 and 3.

- The related section has to be summarized in tabular form.  

Α-Thank you for your comment. We have extended the related work section to summarize more technical-related papers.

- In order to emphasize the uniqueness of their contribution, the authors must identify the limitations of existing related works.  

Α-Thank you for your comment. We have rearranged the related work section based on your suggestions.

- The authors are invited to include a short paragraph about  the use of formal methods for the verification of smart contracts.

Α-Thank you for your suggestions. The revised manuscript added formal methods that could be used individually or in combination to comprehensively verify the contract, ensuring the BANTA method's correctness, security, and privacy.

- For this purpose, the authors are invited to consider the following interesting reference (and others):

1. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9970534
2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1574119220300821

Α-Thank you for your comment. We have added the references based on your suggestions.

- Line 203: the authors need to recall the meaning of the abbreviation "CTI2SA"

A-Thank you for this comment. All abbreviations used in the text are included in a temple at the end of the manuscript. This will help readers easily find the definitions they need to understand the paper.

- The authors need to argue more about the choice of this architecture. 

A-Thank you for this remark. In the revised paper, we have added detailed explanations based on your suggestions.

- Are there other types of architectures that may be used? 

A-Thank you for this helpful comment. Unfortunately, there is yet to be another comparable model to use as a benchmark. Consequently, to avoid bias or incorrect impressions, we present the performance of the proposed model without making any comparisons with any other alternative models except ANTA.

- Figure 1: Some words are written in a very small font.  

Α-Thank you for your careful reading.  The revised paper follows the journal format template.

- Please indicate the source of this figure.

A-Thank you for this remark. All the figures have been drawn from the authors.   

- Line 312: "The blockchain architecture [18]–[20] is a distributed" ===> Please avoid exaggerated self-citation.

I appreciate your alert. Each cited reference has a specific function in bolstering our case or advancing knowledge on the subject. These self-citations, in our opinion, are pertinent to and appropriate for the cited publication. Specifically, the research idea for the entire project is based on these preliminary findings, which significantly impact the validity and quality of the research presented. Respecting your opinion, we removed the two and kept the most important reference, which is the basic idea, an extension of which is a part of this architecture.

- There are two Figures numbered 1.  

Α-Thank you for your comment. We have rearranged the figures’ numbers based on your suggestions.

- Page 10: The smart contract may be moved to the appendix.  

A-Thank you for this constructive comment. The smart contract moved to the appendix based on your remarks.

- The figure on page 12 needs to be improved.  

A-Thank you for this constructive comment. Figure 3, use case industrial BANTA architecture improved thoroughly.  

- Figure 2 is of low quality and needs improvement too.  

A-Thank you for this constructive comment. All figures improved thoroughly (300 dpi).

- The conclusion is too long and needs to be shortened.  

Α-Thank you for your comment. We have rearranged the conclusion section based on your suggestions.

- The authors need to identify the limitations of their work and propose more future work directions.  

Α-Thank you for your comment. We have rearranged the conclusion section based on your suggestions.

    

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

At the Introduction section authors should outline significant contributions of their work. Problem statement should also be made clear in this Section. These are non-existent in current version.

Authors mention ANTA in line 569. Explain it first so reader would understand what it is. Is ANTA part of your research work?

The performance of their proposed Lambda BANTA architecture should be explained by comparing with (an)other related works.

The way the authors compare ANTA and BANTA should be made more effective and easily readable and understandable.

In its current version it is difficult to capture real contributions of the work and the overall performance of their proposed Lambda BANTA architecture. However, I believe this is a good work if the authors improve the Article.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

We want to thank the reviewer for their insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which helped us significantly improve the manuscript. For clarity, we have uploaded a copy of the original manuscript with all changes highlighted. Our point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments is attached to this letter. The comments are reproduced, and our answers follow in a different color (red) immediately after. We would also like to express our gratitude for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript.

 

Comments

At the Introduction section authors should outline significant contributions of their work. Problem statement should also be made clear in this Section. These are non-existent in current version.

Α-Thank you for your remarks. The introduction was rearranged based on your comments and suggestions.

 

Authors mention ANTA in line 569. Explain it first so reader would understand what it is. Is ANTA part of your research work?

Α-Thank you for your comment. A detailed explanation was added at the beginning of Section 4, which explains the ANTA architecture.

 

The performance of their proposed Lambda BANTA architecture should be explained by comparing with (an)other related works.

A-Thank you for this helpful comment. Unfortunately, there is yet to be another comparable model to use as a benchmark. Consequently, to avoid bias or incorrect impressions, we present the performance of the proposed model without making any comparisons with any other alternative models except ANTA.

 

The way the authors compare ANTA and BANTA should be made more effective and easily readable and understandable.

Α-Thank you for your feedback. A detailed explanation was added at the end of Section 4, which explains the difference between ANTA and BANTA architectures.

 

In its current version it is difficult to capture real contributions of the work and the overall performance of their proposed Lambda BANTA architecture. However, I believe this is a good work if the authors improve the Article.

A-Thank you for allowing us to resubmit the revised copy of our manuscript.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All my comments and suggestions were considered. Good luck.