MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153179003 · doi:10.1109/wcre.2006.33

Insider and Ousider Threat-Sensitive SQL Injection Vulnerability Analysis in PHP

2006· article· en· W2153179003 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
TopicSecurity and Verification in Computing
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSQL injectionInsiderSQLComputer securityInformation flowVulnerability (computing)Static analysisConfidentialityCode (set theory)Control flow graphDatabaseWeb applicationProgramming languageWorld Wide WebQuery by ExampleSearch engine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In general, SQL-injection attacks rely on some weak validation of textual input used to build database queries. Maliciously crafted input may threaten the confidentiality and the security policies of Web sites relying on a database to store and retrieve information. Furthermore, insiders may introduce malicious code in a Web application, code that, when triggered by some specific input, for example, would violate security policies. This paper presents an original approach based on static analysis to automatically detect statements in PHP applications that may be vulnerable to SQL-injections triggered by either malicious input (outsider threats) or malicious code (insider threats). Original flow analysis equations, that propagate and combine security levels along an inter-procedural control flow graph (CFG), are presented. The computation of security levels presents linear execution time and memory complexity

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations14
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSecurity and Verification in ComputingFrench-language works237,207