A web application that ingests multi-vendor network device configuration files, normalizes them using AI, and audits them against security frameworks like CIS or NIST to generate compliance reports.
National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) · Software
Signing in saves it for your whole team — everyone on your invite link sees the same two entries. Anything you shortlisted while signed out comes with you.
Decomposed from what the description asks for. Nothing added.
Unified Ingestion Engine
A dashboard that allows administrators to upload single or bulk network device configuration files.
AI-Powered Training Module
An interactive GUI where administrators can map unrecognized CLI commands to compliance parameters to train the parser.
Multi-Framework Compliance Engine
A logic engine that evaluates normalized configurations against user-selected benchmarks such as CIS, NIST, STIGs, and ISO.
Remediation Reporting Module
A feature that generates PDF reports containing device identification, pass or fail findings, and step-by-step CLI remediation commands.
Both columns are read off the brief's own wording. Nothing here is inferred from the ministry's name.
The evaluators will check if the system can successfully ingest heterogeneous configuration files from different vendors, normalize them, handle unknown formats via the interactive training module, and output accurate compliance findings with remediation steps in a PDF report.
Nothing we looked for and failed to find.
A jury can still ask about these. Decide them deliberately rather than by accident.
Generated from the brief's own wording and the competition's published rules — never from a guess about what this ministry prefers.
Has any part of this been shown at a previous event, hackathon or college project?
The guidelines are explicit: your solution must not have appeared in any previous event or programme, of any sort. A recycled project is what a team under time pressure reaches for.
The brief asks for unified ingestion engine. How would you build that?
Decoded from SIH26155 itself — A dashboard that allows administrators to upload single or bulk network device configuration files. The brief asks for it by name.
The brief asks for ai-powered training module. How would you build that?
Decoded from SIH26155 itself — An interactive GUI where administrators can map unrecognized CLI commands to compliance parameters to train the parser. The brief asks for it by name.
The brief asks for multi-framework compliance engine. How would you build that?
Decoded from SIH26155 itself — A logic engine that evaluates normalized configurations against user-selected benchmarks such as CIS, NIST, STIGs, and ISO. The brief asks for it by name.
Each one is quoted from a gap in the brief, not a guess about your team.
No measurable target
The description requires accuracy in parsing and compliance checking but never specifies a numerical percentage or accuracy threshold that the AI must meet.
What the organisers attached, and what the brief assumes you can get.
Same organisation, same year. Reading two of theirs tells you more about what they care about than reading one.
Pick what you are about to do and copy the prompt. It carries the organisers' own wording, the constraints they never spell out, and an instruction not to invent requirements they never set.
Who has this problem, what already exists, and what you would have to find out.
The brief asks for remediation reporting module. How would you build that?
Decoded from SIH26155 itself — A feature that generates PDF reports containing device identification, pass or fail findings, and step-by-step CLI remediation commands. The brief asks for it by name.
Why not use what already exists? Name the closest thing to this that is already running.
A team that has not named the alternative themselves is answering this for the first time in the room.
Which single thing will you demonstrate end to end, start to finish, with nothing skipped?
Ours, not a rule: a narrow thing that fully works survives questioning better than a broad thing that half works. If nobody on the team can name it, that is the finding.
Show me this working: the evaluators will check if the system can successfully ingest heterogeneous configuration files from different vendors, normalize them, handle unknown formats via the interactive training module, and output accurate compliance findings with remediation steps in a PDF report.
This is the evaluator read for your problem statement, decoded from the brief's own wording.