MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125111386 · doi:10.1109/csac.2002.1176310

A financial institution's legacy mainframe access control system in light of the proposed NIST RBAC standard

2003· article· en· W2125111386 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew D. Marshall

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsTD Bank Group
FundersTD Bank
KeywordsNISTRole-based access controlAccess controlDatabase transactionComputer scienceInstitutionControl (management)Financial institutionComputer securityDatabaseBusinessFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we describe a mainframe access control system (DENT) and its associated delegated administration tool (DSAS) that were used in a financial institution for over 20 years to control access to banking transaction products. The first part of this paper describes the design and operation of DENT/DSAS as an example of a long-lived access control system in a financial institution. A standard for role-based access control (RBAC) has recently been proposed by the United States National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The second part of this paper discusses how the functionality of DENT/DSAS could be achieved by applying its principles of operation within the NIST model. In so doing we also evaluate the proposed standard by validating it against the requirements embodied in a successful access control system. We conclude with some observations about the design of DENT/DSAS and suggestions for changes in the proposed RBAC standard to accommodate some features of DENT/DSAS that it does not appear to support.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
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

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207