MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160045272 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2006.277727

Security Design Patterns: Survey and Evaluation

2006· article· en· W2160045272 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
TopicInformation and Cyber Security
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Software security assuranceSoftware design patternField (mathematics)Set (abstract data type)ArchitectureQuality (philosophy)Data scienceSoftwareData miningComputer securityInformation securitySecurity serviceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Security design patterns have been proposed recently as a tool for the improvement of software security during the architecture and design phases. Since the appearance of this research topic in 1997, several catalogs have emerged, and the security pattern community has produced significant contributions, with many related to design. In this paper, we survey major contributions in the state of the art in the field of security design patterns and assess their quality in the context of an established classification. From our results, we determined a classification of inappropriate pattern qualities. Using a six sigma approach, we propose a set of desirable properties that would prevent flaws in new design patterns, as well as a template for expressing them

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations41
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInformation and Cyber SecurityFrench-language works237,207