MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Secure Publishing using Schema-level Role-based Access Control Policies for Fragments of XML Documents

2009· article· en· W2405269923 on OpenAlexaff
Tomasz Müldner, Robin McNeill, Jan Krzysztof Miziołek

Bibliographic record

VenueBalisage series on markup technologies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDocument Structure DescriptionXML EncryptionXML Schema EditorXMLSchema (genetic algorithms)Access controlEfficient XML InterchangeParsingEncryptionXML validationInformation retrievalDatabaseComputer securityWorld Wide WebProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Popularity of social networks is growing rapidly and secure publishing is an important implementation tool for these networks. At the same time, recent implementations of access control policies (ACPs) for sharing fragments of XML documents have moved from distributing to users numerous sanitized sub-documents to disseminating a single document multi-encrypted with multiple cryptographic keys, in such a way that the stated ACPs are enforced. Any application that uses this implementation of ACPs will incur a high cost of generating keys separately for each document. However, most such applications, such as secure publishing, use similar documents, i.e. documents based on a selected schema. This paper describes RBAC defined at the schema level, (SRBAC), and generation of the minimum number of keys at the schema level. The main advantage of our approach is that for any application that uses a fixed number of schemas, keys can be generated (or even pre-generated) only once, and then reused in all documents valid for the given schema. While in general, key generation at the schema level has to be pessimistic, our approach tries to minimize the number of generated keys. Incoming XML documents are efficiently encrypted using single-pass SAX parsing in such a way that the original structure of these documents is completely hidden. We also describe distributing to each user only keys needed for decrypting accessible nodes, and for applying the minimal number of encryption operations to an XML document required to satisfy the protection requirements of the policy.

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBalisage series on markup technologiesSame topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207