Fig 1.
The generations of cyber security attacks.
Table 1.
Comparative analysis of related works.
Fig 2.
Hierarchy for the evaluation.
Table 2.
Factors, sub-factors, and descriptions for evaluation of intrusion detection methods.
Fig 3.
Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approach.
Fig 4.
Degree of satisfaction for CC-i.
Table 3.
Consolidated fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix.
Table 4.
Consolidated fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix for M1 of second level.
Table 5.
Consolidated fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix for M2 of second level.
Table 6.
Integrated fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix for M3 of second level.
Table 7.
Consolidated fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix for M4 of second level.
Table 8.
Integrated pairwise comparison matrix at level 1.
Table 9.
Aggregated pair-wise comparison matrix at level 2 for M1.
Table 10.
Aggregated pair-wise comparison matrix at level 2 for M2.
Table 11.
Aggregated pair-wise comparison matrix at level 2 for M3.
Table 12.
Aggregated pair-wise comparison matrix at level 2 for M4.
Table 13.
Summarizing the outcomes.
Table 14.
Evaluator’s subjective cognitive results described in linguistic terms.
Table 15.
The standardized fuzzy decision matrix.
Table 16.
The weighted standardized fuzzy decision matrix.
Table 17.
Proximity coefficients to the desired level across various alternatives.
Fig 5.
Contrasting the outcomes of traditional and fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approaches.
Table 18.
Contrasting the outcomes of classical and fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approaches.
Fig 6.
Graphical representation of sensitivity analysis.
Table 19.
Statistical insights from sensitivity analysis.