Merge pull request #9 from fkie-cad/issue-2-remove-proprietary-content

Issue 2 remove proprietary content

404.html

@@ -7,7 +7,4 @@
 <div class="text-center">
   <h1>Whoops, this page doesn't exist.</h1>
   <h1>Move along. (404 error)</h1>
-  <br/>
-
-  <img src="{{ 'assets/img/404-southpark.jpg' | relative_url }}" alt="Not found" />
 </div>

content/datasets/cic_ids2017.md

@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ It is the predecessor to the CDE CIC IDS2018 dataset.
 The network is divided into a separate victim and attacker network, each consisting of multiple machines, running
 various Versions of Windows and Linux, as well as macOS.
 
-![CIC IDS 2017 Network Diagram]({{ "/assets/img/cic_ids_2017_diagram.png" | relative_url }})
+![CIC IDS 2017 Network Diagram]({{ "/assets/img/cic_ids_2017_diagram.svg" | relative_url }})
 
 ### Activity
 

content/datasets/cse_cic_ids2018.md

@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ An overview is provided by the diagram below (image quality courtesy of the auth
 Presumably, vulnerable software versions have been installed to facilitate certain exploits, but this is more...
 suggested than specified in their description.
 
-![CIC IDS 2018 Network Diagram]({{ "/assets/img/cse_cic_ids_2018_diagram.png" | relative_url }})
+![CIC IDS 2018 Network Diagram]({{ "/assets/img/cse_cic_ids_2018_diagram.svg" | relative_url }})
 
 ### Activity
 

content/datasets/nigds_dataset.md

@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ specifically measure this.
 The simulation is divided into networks 1 and 2, with 1 representing the main work environment, and 2 acting as critical
 infrastructure of a given enterprise, depicted in the picture below.
 
-![NGIDS Network Diagram]({{ "/assets/img/ngids_ds.png" | relative_url }})
+![NGIDS Network Diagram]({{ "/assets/img/ngids_ds.svg" | relative_url }})
 
 Machine A collects host logs, while machine B collects network packets (as pcaps) moving from network 1 to network 2.
 

content/datasets/pwnjutsu.md

@@ -39,10 +39,8 @@ The host and network logs extracted from this process form the PWNJUTSU dataset.
 The main drawback, however, is that the resulting logs are not labeled.
 
 ### Environment
-Infrastructure was deployed in a virtualized way on a dedicated server, depicted below.
-Each participant was designated a separate network instance within this infrastructure, consisting of one gateway and three machines ("level 1-3"), which the participant had to move through laterally.
-
-![PWNJUTSU Infrastructure]({{ "/assets/img/pwnjutsu_infrastructure.png" | relative_url }})
+The entire infrastructure was deployed in a virtualized way on a dedicated server, hosting administrative services as well as several small networks.
+Each participant was designated one such network instance within this infrastructure, consisting of one gateway and three machines ("level 1-3"), which the participant had to move through laterally.
 
 Each set of three vulnerable machines runs Ubuntu 14.04, Windows 2008, and Ubuntu 20.04, respectively.
 The first two machines are derivations of the Metasploitable 3 project, while the third (Ubuntu 20.04) is "custom", with four distinct vulnerabilities:

content/datasets/unsw_nb15.md

@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ The general setup consists of three virtual servers, two routers and an unspecif
 Server 1 and 3 generate normal traffic, while server 2 generates malicious traffic.
 The paper lists the number of "distinct IP addresses" as 45, but the total number of machines is most definitely lower.
 
-![UNSW-NB15 Network Architecture]({{ "/assets/img/unsw_nb15_network_architecture.jpeg" | relative_url }})
+![UNSW-NB15 Network Architecture]({{ "/assets/img/unsw_nb15_network_architecture.svg" | relative_url }})
 
 It seems to be implied that all traffic from router 2 is (also?) passed to router 1, where all traffic is dumped in the form of pcaps.
 Section 4.A is not entirely clear in this regard.