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 (BOF) is a well-known, and one of the worst and oldest, vulnerabilities in programs. BOF attacks overwrite data buffers and introduce wide ranges of attacks like execution of arbitrary injected code. Many approaches are applied to mitigate buffer overflow vulnerabilities; however, mitigating BOF vulnerabilities is a perennial task as these vulnerabilities elude the mitigation efforts and appear in the operational programs at run-time. Monitoring is a popular approach for detecting BOF attacks during program execution, and it can prevent or send warnings to take actions for avoiding the consequences of the exploitations. Currently, there is no detailed classification of the proposed monitoring approaches to understand their common characteristics, objectives, and limitations. In this paper, the authors classify runtime BOF attack monitoring and prevention approaches based on seven major characteristics. Finally, these approaches are compared for attack detection coverage based on a set of BOF attack types. The classification will enable researchers and practitioners to select an appropriate BOF monitoring approach or provide guidelines to build a new one.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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