MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110035450 · doi:10.22215/etd/2005-07740

Secure public instant messaging

2005· dissertation· en· W2110035450 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Mannan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUser Authentication and Security Systems
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityCanadian HeritageLibrary and Archives Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInstantInstant messagingComputer scienceHumanitiesLibrary sciencePolitical scienceWorld Wide WebArtPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou autres formats.i * i Canada R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner.Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.list feature to track users' availability in AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) [3].How 1 R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner.Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.1.1.Introdu ction 2 ever, the recent rise in popularity of consumer IM services has been phenomenal (e.g.see [89]).Starting as a casual application, mainly used by young adults and college students, IM systems now connect even naval operations (over 300 US Navy warships are connected via an IM service) and various customer services [33].There are many public domain IM services.The most popular include AIM [3], ICQ [66], MSN Messenger (Windows Messenger in Windows XP) [102], and Yahoo!Messenger (YIM) [188].We focus on these messaging networks and their default clients.1There are also many third-party2 clients th at interact on these networks.We discuss both the third-party and default clients in terms of the security risks associated with them.The basic protocols currently used in public IM systems are open to many security threats (see Chapter 3 and 4).Security techniques, e.g.TLS/SSL connections or digital certificates, used in corporate IM systems are inadequate to address these threats (see below). M otivation .IM differs from many other Internet applications because of its near real-time nature of user interactions, e.g.online presence notification and instant messages.Conse quently, many security mechanisms designed for other Internet applications (e.g.web browser, email) are inadequate for IM.Despite the immense popularity of IM sys tems (both in the consumer and business world), security issues related to IM have largely been ignored by the security research community.To our knowledge, there exists no complete security protocol suite in the literature specifically tailored for password-based IM systems.1By default clients we m ean th e IM clients p rovided by public IM service providers (e.g.MSN M essenger).2B y third-party clients we refer to clients (e.g.G aim [125], T rillian [32], IM Secure [192]) w hich in te ract w ith th e existing m a jo r IM n etw orks, an d secu rity -en h an ced IM p ro d u cts (e.g.Yahoo! Business M essenger [187]).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0390.030

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations12
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUser Authentication and Security SystemsFrench-language works237,207