MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136944226 · doi:10.1109/issre.2008.11

Resolving JavaScript Vulnerabilities in the Browser Runtime

2008· article· en· W2136944226 on OpenAlexaff
Ejike Ofuonye, James Miller

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb Application Security Vulnerabilities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJavaScriptComputer scienceUnobtrusive JavaScriptScripting languageWeb applicationCross-site scriptingRich Internet applicationClient-side scriptingMalwareWeb application securityWorld Wide WebThe InternetDynamic web pageStatic analysisWeb pageComputer securityOperating systemWeb developmentWeb APIProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The volume of Web based malware on the Internet keeps rising despite huge investments on Web security. JavaScript, the dominant scripting language for Web applications, is the primary channel for most of these attacks. In this paper, we describe research into the design and implementation of new Web client protection system based on code instrumentation techniques. This system combines traditional static analysis techniques with a dynamic HTML, CSS and JavaScript code runtime monitoring agent to offer an efficient, easily deployable, policy driven framework for improved user protection. Rewriting and runtime monitoring are based on providing safe equivalents of JavaScript code constructs known to contain in securities and hence exploitable by malicious Web applications. As a demonstration of the practical capabilities of our framework, we also include a case study attack and empirical analysis of some of its various aspects across 1000 home pages belonging to the most popular web sites on the Internet.

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)0.007
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWeb Application Security VulnerabilitiesFrench-language works237,207