MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2199032704

Using admissible interference to detect denial of service vulnerabilities

2003· article· en· W2199032704 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

VenuePolyPublie (École Polytechnique de Montréal) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSecurity and Verification in Computing
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCryptographic protocolProcess calculusCryptographic primitiveBisimulationCryptographyNondeterministic algorithmTheoretical computer scienceProtocol (science)Property (philosophy)Denial-of-service attackComputer securityUniversal composabilityComputer network
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Meadows recently proposed a formal cost-based framework for analysis of denial of service. It was showed how some principles that have already been used to make cryptographic protocols more resistant to denial of service by trading off the cost to defender against the cost to the attacker can be formalized. The first contribution of this paper is to introduce a new security property called impassivity which intends to capture the ability of a protocol to achieve these goals in the framework of a generic value-passing process algebra called Security Process Algebra (SPPA) extended with local function calls, cryptographic primitives and special semantic features in order to cope with cryptographic protocols. More specifically, impassivity is defined as an information flow property founded on bisimulation-based non-deterministic admissible interference. A sound and complete proof method for impassivity is also provided. The method extends previous results presented by the authors on bisimulation-based non-deterministic admissible interference and its application to the analysis of cryptographic protocols. The method is illustrated throughout the paper on the TCP/IP connection protocol. A more substantial application to the 1KP secure electronic payment protocol is given in appendix. Keywords: Denial of service, Protocols, Admissible interference, Bisimulation, Equivalence-checking 1.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.240 · 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