MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Control Flow Based Pointcuts for Security Hardening Concerns

2007· book-chapter· en· W126196860 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSecurity and Verification in Computing
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConcordia University
KeywordsCorrectnessComputer scienceControl flowProgramming languageControl flow graph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present two new control flow based point-cuts to Aspect-Oriented Programming (AOP) languages that are needed for systematic hardening of security concerns. They allow to identify particular join points in a program’s control flow graph (CFG). The first proposed primitive is the GAFlow, the closest guaranteed ancestor, which returns the closest ancestor join point to the pointcuts of interest that is on all their runtime paths. The second proposed primitive is the GDFlow, the closest guaranteed descendant, which returns the closest child join point that can be reached by all paths starting from the pointcuts of interest. We find these pointcuts to be necessary because they are needed to perform many security hardening practices and, to the best of our knowledge, none of the existing pointcuts can provide their functionalities. Moreover, we show the viability and correctness of our proposed pointcuts by elaborating and implementing their algorithms and presenting the results of a testing case study.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSecurity and Verification in ComputingFrench-language works237,207