## 5 Feasibility and Evaluation
### Architectural Comparison
#### 5.5.1 Interoperability  
A CBA design makes a component more independent and reusable [12]. EDAS is based on the CBA style, which makes its components interoperable. This is also true for distributed systems. Moreover, it is based on the event processing concept, which is a typical facility in almost all applications.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Attribute** & **EDAS** & **Host** & **Endpoint** & **Agent-Based** & **Centralized** & **Distributed** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**CBA**} & Interoperability & ++ & - & - & - & ++ & ++ \\  & Reliability & ++ & - & - & - & - & ++ \\  & Usability & ++ & + & + & - & - & - \\  & Latency & + & ++ & ++ & + & + & + \\  & Throughput & ++ & + & + & + & + & + \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**CBA**} & Security & ++ & + & + & + & + & ++ \\  & Monitoring Scope & ++ & + & + & + & + & + \\  & Adaptability & ++ & - & - & - & - & - \\  & Threat Detection Accuracy & ++ & + & + & + & + & ++ \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**CBA**} & Simplicity & + & ++ & ++ & + & + & + \\  & Extensibility & ++ & - & - & + & + & + \\  & Maintainability & + & ++ & + & + & + & + \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**CBA**} & Supportability & ++ & ++ & ++ & ++ & ++ & ++ \\  & Testability & + & ++ & ++ & + & + & + \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: EDAS _vs._ traditional security controls.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **S. No** & **Attributes** & **Ref.** & **Description** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**CBA**} & 6 & Security & [29, 30, 31] & The capability of a system to stand against a potential threat concerning the C-I-A services \\ \cline{2-5}  & 7 & Monitoring Scope & The various types of contextual information/assets the system can monitor and analyze \\ \cline{2-5}  & 8 & Adaptability [31] & The ability of a system to systematically and autonomously regulate its behavior and re-configure its settings (here Security Adaptation only) \\ \cline{2-5}  & 9 & Threat Detection Accuracy & The capability of a system to accurately detect threats to avoid false positives/negatives \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**CBA**} & 10 & Simplicity & [28] & A measure reflecting how functionalities are separated from one another to keep things clear and easy to understand, isolate and develop \\ \cline{2-5}  & 11 & Extensibility & [28, 31] & The ease with which a system functionality can be extended by adding more components to it \\ \cline{2-5}  & 12 & Maintainability & [28, 30, 31] & The ability of a system to be easily modified when requirements are changed \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**CBA**} & 13 & Supportability & [29, 31] & The ability of a system to provide helpful information to resolve errors, trace user activity and related issues \\ \cline{2-5}  & 14 & Testability & [29, 31] & A measure depicting how well a test criteria can be created, executed and evaluated against the system \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: _Cont._Hence, irrespective of the type and nature of an application, device or network, it is an environment or platform-independent architecture that can be used in any context where the monitored objects can generate and communicate events. On the other hand, host, endpoints and agent-based solutions are designed for particular platforms performing specialized tasks. They may share data with external systems, but cannot be operated on different platforms.