The phrase "attack paths" is correct and usable in written English.
It is typically used in the context of cybersecurity or risk assessment to describe potential routes that an attacker might take to compromise a system or network.
Example: "The security team identified several attack paths that could be exploited by malicious actors to gain unauthorized access to sensitive data."
Alternatives: "threat vectors" or "exploitation routes".
Based on this representation, the objective is to search for attack paths with minimum action cost in the case of the attackers and to highlight the most critical points for a successful attack in the case of the defenders.
Victims can identify attack paths after receiving tens of packets encoding.
One of the major problems of the logging method is the requirement for high amount of memory and CPU usage on the routers in the attack paths [6].
Attack paths from hypothetical attack sources to known mission critical systems are analyzed, and the impact on critical business functions (e.g., energy distribution) is assessed resulting in a quantified risk assessment.
In case of fire, the fire department must have access for all their cars to all major 'fire attack paths' (often the main entrance and stairways), with a maximum distance of 50 meters.
Since there is no more sign in the dist field, in a situation when there are several attack paths, it is difficult for the victim to identify which marked packets belong to which router because there are lots of routers in the same distance to the victim.
Ristenpart et al.[10] demonstrate that even supposedly secret information such as where a given virtual machine is running may be inferred by an attacker, highlighting another attack path.
We have shown that using DFM may reduce as many as 90% of marked packets on average required for tracing attacks with no false positives, while it eliminates the spoofed marking embedded by the attacker as well as compromised routers in the attack path in [27].
The CPU overhead of DPM is lower than the PPM approach because unlike PPM, in DPM only the closest edge router to the attacker is responsible for marking (not all routers in the attack path).
DFM totally eliminates the threat of mark spoofing, not only if spoofed marking is inscribed by the attacker, but also if it is incurred by the compromised routers in the attack path.
Before the attack, PATH, the Port Authority Trans-Hudson commuter rail system, carried 67,000 passengers a day home from the World Trade Center.
