MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988138196 · doi:10.1109/msp.2008.115

Developing and Retaining a Security Testing Mindset

2008· article· en· W1988138196 on OpenAlexaff
Edward Bonver, Michael Cohen

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Security & Privacy · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation and Cyber Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMindsetSoftware security assuranceSecurity testingComputer scienceTask (project management)Computer securityInformation securitySecurity serviceEngineeringCloud computing securitySecurity information and event managementSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developing a security testing mindset is a hard task. Moreover, as hard as it is to develop it, it's just as hard to retain it and effectively apply it during testing. The authors discuss what it takes to conduct successful software security testing, primarily by describing how to develop a security testing mindset, retain it, and effectively apply it. In particular, they explore the different roles and processes an organization needs to maintain a high level of security assurance.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.010
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0040.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Security & PrivacySame topicInformation and Cyber SecurityFrench-language works237,207