MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125784473 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2002.1013038

The design of a secure agent platform

2003· article· en· W2125784473 on OpenAlexaff
K. Saenchai, Luigi Benedicenti, Raman Paranjape

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Agent-Based Network Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer securityDatabase transactionSimple (philosophy)CryptographySoftware agentOperating systemDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper contains a description of the enhancement of TEEMA, an extensible, general-purpose mobile agent execution environment, to support secure communications. Software agents are proactive, autonomous programs that are given the option to migrate among supporting platforms. Agents can mimic the behavior of a number of systems, from simple cellular automata to complex handoff sequences in cellular systems. They can also be adopted to represent users and act on their behalf in such environments as economic commerce and online communities. To be used in this capacity, agents must be trusted by users. Unfortunately, agents must often rely on the good faith of the execution environments and must be trusted within any environment they are allowed to reside. This poses a serious security threat when agents, for example, need to establish a transaction that involves the exchange of sensitive information, like, for example, credit card numbers, social insurance numbers, but also telephones, medical information, and other sensitive data. The obvious solution to this problem is to make the channels transmitting such sensitive information safe from tampering and interception. The construction of a secure system starts by building a secure environment for the execution environments. TEEMA is written completely in Java, and this makes it possible to adopt existing security protocols.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMobile Agent-Based Network ManagementFrench-language works237,207