MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131716537 · doi:10.1109/sp.2011.16

Preventing Sybil Attacks by Privilege Attenuation: A Design Principle for Social Network Systems

2011· article· en· W2131716537 on OpenAlexafffund
Philip W. L. Fong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInternet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceAccess controlAuthorizationComputer securityPrivilege (computing)GraphTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Face book-style Social Network Systems (FSNSs), which are a generalization of the access control model of Face book, an access control policy specifies a graph-theoretic relationship between the resource owner and resource access or that must hold in the social graph in order for access to be granted. Pseudonymous identities may collude to alter the topology of the social graph and gain access that would otherwise be forbidden. We formalize Denning's Principle of Privilege Attenuation (POPA) as a run-time property, and demonstrate that it is a necessary and sufficient condition for preventing the above form of Sybil attacks. A static policy analysis is then devised for verifying that an FSNS is POPA compliant (and thus Sybil free). The static analysis is proven to be both sound and complete. We also extend our analysis to cover a peculiar feature of FSNS, namely, what Fong et al. dubbed as Stage-I Authorization. We discuss the anomalies resulted from this extension, and point out the need to redesign Stage-I Authorization to support a rational POPA-compliance analysis.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.010
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 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

Citations50
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInternet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-votingFrench-language works237,207