MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065228389 · doi:10.1109/ntms.2012.6208767

A Study of Trojan Propagation in Online Social Networks

2012· article· en· W2065228389 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Reza Faghani, Ashraf Matrawy, Chung–Horng Lung

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalwareTrojanCluster analysisComputer scienceClustering coefficientComputer securityConfidentialityCode (set theory)Theoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Online Social Networks (OSNs) are generally based on real social relations. Hence, malware writers are taking advantage of this fact to propagate their viral code into OSNs. In recent years, major OSNs, such as Facebook, were extensively under malware attacks. These attacks commonly lead to hundreds of thousands of compromised accounts that may bear personal and even confidential information. In this paper, different types of malware in OSNs are discussed. Then, this paper investigates the attacking vector of the Trojan type malware in OSNs. First, the clustering coefficient which is one of the main OSN graph characteristics is examined through simulation. It is shown that the clustering coefficient has a linear effect on the speed of Trojans. Second, the effect of user behavior is studied using different user reactions to malicious posts. Through simulations, we show that, if Trojans try to deceive users by choosing interesting topics, the speed of propagation will be increased exponentially. This effect raises the significance of giving security knowledge to avoid designated social engineered posts. Finally, we suggest adjustment to the current model for malware propagation in scale-free networks to consider the effect of clustering coefficient and the user behaviors.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComplex Network Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207