MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050396717 · doi:10.1145/2107581.2107584

Testing and assessing web vulnerability scanners for persistent SQL injection attacks

2011· article· en· W2050396717 on OpenAlexaff
Nidal Khoury, Pavol Zavarsky, Dale Lindskog, Ron Ruhl

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb Application Security Vulnerabilities
Canadian institutionsConcordia University of Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSQL injectionComputer scienceLoginVulnerability (computing)ExploitSQLWeb applicationCross-site scriptingTestbedSecure codingDatabaseComputer securityWeb application securityWeb pageWorld Wide WebInformation securitySoftware security assuranceQuery by ExampleWeb development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Web application security scanners are automated tools used to detect security vulnerabilities in web applications. Recent research has shown that detecting persistent SQL injection vulnerabilities, one of the most critical web application vulnerabilities, is a major challenge for black-box scanners. In this paper, we evaluate three state of art black-box scanners that support detecting persistent SQL injection vulnerabilities. We developed our custom testbed "MatchIt" that tests the scanners capability in detecting persistent SQL injections. The results show that existing vulnerabilities are not detected even when these automated scanners are explicitly configured to exploit the vulnerability. The weaknesses of blackbox scanners identified reside in many areas: crawling web pages, input values and attack code selection, user registration and login, analysis of server replies and classification of findings. Because of the poor detection rate, we analyze the scanner's behavior and present a set of recommendations that could enhance the discovery of persistent SQL injection vulnerabilities.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.207 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations21
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWeb Application Security VulnerabilitiesFrench-language works237,207