MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067228051 · doi:10.1145/1595676.1595680

Localization of credential information to address increasingly inevitable data breaches

2008· article· en· W2067228051 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Mannan, Paul C. van Oorschot

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInternet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredentialPersonally identifiable informationData breachCredit cardComputer scienceInternet privacyCommitIdentity theftComputer securityInformation sensitivitySmart cardIdentification (biology)Database transactionIdentity (music)World Wide WebPaymentDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large-scale data breaches exposing sensitive personal information are becoming commonplace. For numerous reasons, conventional personal (identification) information leaks from databases that store online and/or on-site user transaction data. Collected ID numbers and supporting personal information enable malicious parties to commit large-scale identity fraud. Gates and Slonim (NSPW 2003) proposed the owner-controlled information paradigm to address privacy violations of personal information where users are expected to maintain all their information using a personal device. Rubin and Wright (FC 2001), Molloy et al. (FC 2007), and others explored the use of one-time numbers to address credit card fraud (mostly for online use). However, several other types of ID number are at least as sensitive as credit card numbers. Our fundamental assumption is that collected personal information will eventually be breached. To combat identity fraud under this new environmental attack paradigm, we introduce a more general approach involving localized or customized ID numbers for both card-present and card-not-present transactions. We also explore four variants of the general idea to spark more discussion and further research in this area.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

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 communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInternet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-votingFrench-language works237,207