MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979697391 · doi:10.1109/tla.2012.6142473

Analysis of Relay Attacks on RFiD Systems

2012· article· en· W1979697391 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

VenueIEEE Latin America Transactions · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRFID technology advancements
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaToronto Metropolitan UniversitySTMicroelectronics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelayComputer securityComputer scienceOrthogonalityInterference (communication)Identification (biology)CryptographyVariety (cybernetics)Computer networkClass (philosophy)Radio-frequency identificationTelecommunicationsChannel (broadcasting)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today Radio Frequency identification RFiD systems are widely used in a variety of security sensitive applications such as access control, the payment industry and many others. An important class of attacks on these types of systems is that of relay attacks, due to the orthogonality of such attacks to the existing security and cryptographic solutions. In this paper we address the open question of the maximum distance between the rogue Reader and the victim TAG under which a relay attack can be successful. We determine that interference is the largest confounding factor, but that with proper interference cancelation, a distance of up to 10m is possible. This paper provides an analysis of the maximum distance for successful communication between the rogue Reader and the legitimate TAG,herein called the victim distance. We also propose several countermeasures to the relay attack.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.233 · 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