MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098316496 · doi:10.1109/csac.2005.23

Evolving Successful Stack Overflow Attacks for Vulnerability Testing

2006· article· en· W2098316496 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEvolutionary Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Institute for Materials ScienceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsExploitComputer scienceVulnerability (computing)Focus (optics)Stack (abstract data type)Buffer overflowProcess (computing)Call stackVariety (cybernetics)Distributed computingComputer securityOperating systemArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The work presented in this paper is intended to test crucial system services against stack overflow vulnerabilities. The focus of the test is the user-accessible variables, that is to say, the inputs from the user as specified at the command line or in a configuration file. The tester is defined as a process for automatically generating a wide variety of user-accessible variables that result in malicious buffers (an exploit). In this work, the search for successful exploits is formulated as an optimization problem and solved using evolutionary computation. Moreover the resulting attacks are passed through the Snort misuse detection system to observe the detection (or not) of each exploit

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.280
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEvolutionary Algorithms and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207