Classification of Buffer Overflow Vulnerability Monitors
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Buffer overflow is one of the worst program vulnerabilities. Many preventive approaches are applied to mitigate buffer overflow (BOF) vulnerabilities. However, BOF vulnerabilities are still being discovered in programs on a daily basis which might be exploited to crash programs and execute unwanted code at runtime. Monitoring is a popular approach for detecting BOF attacks during program execution and can prevent the consequences of BOF vulnerability exploitations. However, there is no classification of the proposed approaches to understand their common characteristics, objectives, and limitations. In this paper, we classify the current BOF vulnerability monitoring approaches based on the following five characteristics: monitoring objective, program state utilization, implementation mechanism, environmental change, and attack response. The classification will enable researchers to differentiate among existing monitoring approaches. Moreover, it will provide a guideline to choose monitoring approaches suitable for their needs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it