MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988010134 · doi:10.1145/1103626.1103629

On instant messaging worms, analysis and countermeasures

2005· article· en· W1988010134 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
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Malware Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsInstant messagingComputer scienceUsabilityWorld Wide WebInstantComputer securityMinor (academic)Internet privacyHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We provide a collection of minor results on the area of Instant Messaging (IM) worms, which has received relatively little attention in the formal literature. We review selected IM worms and summarize their main characteristics, motivating a brief overview of the network formed by IM contact lists, and a discussion of theoretical consequences of worms in such networks. Existing methods to restrict an IM worm epidemic are analyzed in terms of usability and effectiveness, leading to the suggestion of two minor variations to limit IM worm propagation. We believe these variations are more user-friendly and effective than existing published methods. We also provide brief results of a three and a half year user study of IM text messaging and file transfer frequency in a moderate-size public IM network -- the largest such study to date -- which is of independent interest, but also supports in part the preceding claim regarding user-friendliness.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations62
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Malware Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207