MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012654131 · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2013.09.005

Personalized Security Approaches in E-banking Employing Flask Architecture over Cloud Environment

2013· article· en· W2012654131 on OpenAlexaff
Nayer A. Hamidi, G.K. Mahdi Rahimi, Alireza Nafarieh, Ali Hamidi, Bill Robertson

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia Computer Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCloud Data Security Solutions
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCloud computingCloud computing securityComputer securitySecurity controlsComputer security modelEnterprise information security architectureArchitectureAccess controlDistributed System Security ArchitecturePaymentSecurity serviceSecurity information and event managementControl (management)Information securityWorld Wide WebOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Personalized security in E-banking is an important issue for many individuals and companies that are looking for achieving the proper level of security. The cloud environment is a suitable infrastructure to implement personalized security mechanisms for many big companies such as banks. Employing mandatory access controls boosts the security of E-banking to a high level. Flask architecture is the security architecture which enforces mandatory access control that provides a clean separation of security policies and enforcements. In this paper, it a model for implementing personalized security in E-banking over a cloud environment is introduced. Using role-based access control models, the security system can be configured to provide expected level of security in e-payment systems employing user-defined policies for individuals, companies and governmental organizations. The paper focuses on defining such policies and how they improve the level of security.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations20
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcedia Computer ScienceSame topicCloud Data Security SolutionsFrench-language works237,207