MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140662117 · doi:10.1109/ndt.2009.5272133

Keypress interval timing ratios as behavioral biometrics for authentication in computer security

2009· article· en· W2140662117 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUser Authentication and Security Systems
Canadian institutionsNipissing University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKeystroke loggingPasswordBiometricsKeystroke dynamicsComputer scienceAuthentication (law)Key (lock)Computer securityBehavioral patternInterval (graph theory)Human–computer interactionS/KEY

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many different types of keystroke dynamics approaches have been explored to protect personal data in networked systems. Keystroke patterns are behavioral biometrics, and are considered to be as unique to an individual as a signature. This paper presents a new approach to keystroke analysis that uses key press interval ratios to authenticate users. Participants in this study registered their passwords into a specially-designed analysis program. Keypress ratios were calculated, and neural network techniques were employed to obtain a mapping between patterns and the correct user. Results indicate that authentication through keypress ratios achieves high true acceptance rates, while also maintaining low false acceptance rates, which are particularly important in high-security applications. The approach presented here is suitable for incorporation into agent-based networked security systems.

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 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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUser Authentication and Security SystemsFrench-language works237,207