MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164463646 · doi:10.1145/1179542.1179545

A preliminary investigation of worm infections in a bluetooth environment

2006· article· en· W2164463646 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
TopicBluetooth and Wireless Communication Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBluetoothComputer scienceProtocol (science)Vulnerability (computing)Computer securityCode (set theory)PopulationTRACE (psycholinguistics)Computer networkWirelessSet (abstract data type)TelecommunicationsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past year, there have been several reports of malicious code exploiting vulnerabilities in the Bluetooth protocol. While the research community has started to investigate a diverse set of Bluetooth security issues, little is known about the feasibility and the propagation dynamics of a worm in a Bluetooth environment. This paper is an initial attempt to remedy this situation.We start by showing that the Bluetooth protocol design and implementation is large and complex. We gather traces and we use controlled experiments to investigate whether a large-scale Bluetooth worm outbreak is viable today. Our data shows that starting a Bluetooth worm infection is easy, once a vulnerability is discovered. Finally, we use trace-drive simulations to examine the propagation dynamics of Bluetooth worms. We find that Bluetooth worms can infect a large population of vulnerable devices relatively quickly, in just a few days.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.562
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.190 · 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