Systematic Security Analysis for Service-Oriented Software Architectures
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the dramatic increase in intrusive activities architecture security analysis and design has emerged as an important aspect of the development of software services. It is a well-accepted fact in software engineering that security concerns like any other quality concerns should be dealt with in the early stages of software development. However, current software security risk analysis approaches still heavily rely on ad hoc techniques. These involve significant amount of subjective efforts creating greater potential for inaccuracies. In this paper, we propose a User System Interaction Effect (USIE) model that can be used systematically to derive and analyze security concerns from service-oriented software architectures. Many aspects of the model derivation and analysis can be automated, which limit the amount of user involvement, and thereby reduce the subjectivity underlying typical security risk analysis process. The model can be used as a foundation for systematic analysis of software services from different security perspectives.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it