Reviewer: Sailesh Kumar
Date: 11-17-2005
What is the consensus rating for this paper? top 25%, but not top 10%
How confident are you that the consensus judgement treats the paper fairly? reasonably confident
How would you rate the overall review process for this paper? thorough
How did the disagreements among the reviewers get resolved? Or if you were unable to reach consensus, what were the main sticking points?
This paper in general was liked by most of the reviewers. Most of them rated it as top 25% paper. There were some issues raised regarding the incremental update of the CAM data base. It might be possible that the CAM database will have lots of holes left (may be deliberately) which might result in space inefficiency. Also, one more general consensus was regarding the power consumption results, some were skeptical about it because it was not based upon real experiments. Some people were also raised concerns over the way synthetic rules were generated. It seems like synthetic rules were quite different from the snort rules, at least the experimental results suggests so. In conclusion, the paper was rated as the one with significant contribution and improvement over previous techniques.