MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995054968 · doi:10.1145/1321211.1321229

Client certificate and IP address based multi-factor authentication for J2EE web applications

2007· article· en· W1995054968 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hee Sun Park, Stan Redford

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of CASCON · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAuthentication (law)CertificateRoot certificateMulti-factor authenticationWeb application securityWeb applicationFactor (programming language)World Wide WebPublic key certificateComputer securityComputer networkWeb serviceAuthentication protocolWeb developmentPublic-key cryptographyEncryption

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Secure and encrypted authentication is an important aspect of J2EE web application security. SSL client certificate authentication provides an encrypted log-on mechanism and a single sign-on capability that does not involve the use of passwords. Unlike SPNEGO-protocol-based Kerberos authentication, which requires both parties to be in the same domain, client certificate authentication works across domain boundaries as long as the user registry for the application server is properly set up to handle the certificate. But client certificate authentication comes with some shortcomings---especially when the client certificate is used from an unauthorized machine. We will examine this potential vulnerability of client certificate authentication and show how to make this type of authentication more secure by using multi-factor authentication. Adding an IP-address-checking servlet filter to the web application is one good approach. We will provide implementation details as well.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of CASCONSame topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207