Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated online password guessing attacks are facilitated by the fact that most user authentication techniques provide a yes/no answer as the result of an authentication attempt. These attacks are somewhat restricted by Automated Turing Tests (ATTs, e.g., captcha challenges) that attempt to mandate human assistance. ATTs are not very difficult for legitimate users, but always pose an inconvenience. Several current ATT implementations are also found to be vulnerable to improved image processing algorithms. ATTs can be made more complex for automated software, but that is limited by the trade-off between user-friendliness and effectiveness of ATTs. As attackers gain control of large-scale botnets, relay the challenge to legitimate users at compromised websites, or even have ready access to cheap, sweat-shop human solvers for defeating ATTs, online guessing attacks are becoming a greater security risk. Using deception techniques (as in honeypots), we propose the user-verifiable authentication scheme (Uvauth) that tolerates, instead of detecting or counteracting, guessing attacks. Uvauth provides access to all authentication attempts; the correct password enables access to a legitimate session with valid user data, and all incorrect passwords lead to fake sessions. Legitimate users are expected to learn the authentication outcome implicitly from the presented user data, and are relieved from answering ATTs; the authentication result never leaves the server and thus remains (directly) inaccessible to attackers. In addition, we suggest using adapted distorted images and pre-registered images/text as a complement to convey an authentication response, especially for accounts that do not host much personal data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.022 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".