MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1601913499 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2004.1344989

Security audit: a case study [information systems]

2004· article· en· W1601913499 on OpenAlexaff
E.C. Lo, M. Marchand

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation and Cyber Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of the Fraser Valley
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation security auditAuditComputer securitySecurity information and event managementComputer scienceSecurity serviceInformation security managementInformation securityVulnerability (computing)Information technology auditCertified Information Security ManagerAsset (computer security)Cloud computing securityBusinessAccountingNetwork security policyInternal auditJoint auditCloud computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the basics of an information systems security audit, through a real security audit carried out on a medium-sized organization. The audit was the 1/sup st/ security audit done on the company and would serve as a security baseline for future audits. An effective security audit should not be a one-time event but rather an ongoing process. Security is a delicate balance between protection, availability and user acceptance. We start the security audit at the outside of the network and gradually work our way inward. We performed a vulnerability check on the exposed IP addresses and ports. Each of the vulnerabilities found was carefully assessed to see if it violated the security policies of the organization. An analysis of firewalls and various remote access methods of the organization were also evaluated. Using a wireless network sniffer, we found the footprints of the wireless LAN and some interesting results were obtained. Finally, some sensitive managerial issues and findings of an awareness survey of information security were presented.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.823

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 communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInformation and Cyber SecurityFrench-language works237,207