MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077030116 · doi:10.1504/ijmr.2012.045245

Critical infrastructure protection security layer for DNP3 devices

2012· article· en· W2077030116 on OpenAlex
Farhad Nabhani, Todd Mander, Simon Hodgson, P. W. Shelton

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Manufacturing Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer securityCritical infrastructureControl system securityComputer scienceLimitingConfidentialityAutomationImplementationSecurity serviceSecurity controlsApplication layerCritical infrastructure protectionInformation securityControl (management)Network security policyEngineeringSoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A security layer for the popular utility Distributed Network Protocol (DNP) is proposed, limiting the effectiveness of cyber attacks on critical infrastructures with essential confidentiality. Ongoing automation of critical infrastructures, including power, gas and water, increases the responsiveness of control operations and the number of utility devices. This ongoing automation, therefore, increases cyber attacker capabilities to disrupt utility operations and, therefore, create serious security challenges. These security challenges result in manufacturer challenges that are not readily met by current commercial security implementations. The security layer presented in this paper meets the security challenges and manufacturer challenges and handles utility characteristics.

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 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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.572
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.320 · 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