MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1499080457

Formal Implementation of Network Security Policies.

2004· article· en· W1499080457 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueConference on Privacy, Security and Trust · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSecurity policyNetwork security policyEquivalence (formal languages)Network securityComputer security modelProcess (computing)Computer securityNetwork Access ControlProcess calculusDistributed computingSecurity serviceTheoretical computer scienceComputer networkInformation securityCloud computing securityProgramming languageCloud computingMathematicsOperating system
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces an algebraic approach that aims to enforce a security policy on a given computer network. More precisely, given a network and a security policy, we want to automatically generate the necessary monitors (a single fire-wall or many ones where each of them controls a part of the networks) that force the network to be secure according to the security policy definition. In this approach, the network is formalized as a process P , the security policy is formally specified as a formula Φ and the problem is to find a process M (monitor) such that P M |= Φ. Once this step is completed, some results about equivalence between processes can be used to distribute the monitor over the network. In other words, the equivalence results aims to break the monitor M into small slices that will be distributed so that each slice controls only a small part of the network.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.888

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.254 · 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