MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2495348482 · doi:10.1109/aero.2016.7500941

TPM-supported key agreement protocols for increased autonomy in constellation of spacecrafts

2016· article· en· W2495348482 on OpenAlexaff
Marcio Juliato, Catherine H. Gebotys, Ignacio Sanchez

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptographic Implementations and Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPayload (computing)SpacecraftKey (lock)Computer scienceConstellationKey managementReplay attackCryptographySpace explorationAutonomyComputer securityProtocol (science)Aerospace engineeringAuthentication (law)EngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The incorporation of security mechanisms to protect spacecraft's TT&C and payload links is becoming a constant requirement in many space missions. More advanced mission concepts will allow spacecrafts to have higher levels of autonomy, which includes performing key management operations independently of control centers. This is especially beneficial to support missions operating distantly from Earth. In order to support such levels of autonomy, key agreement is one approach that allows spacecrafts to establish new cryptographic keys as they deem necessary. This work introduces an approach based on a trusted platform module that allows for key agreement to be performed with minimal computational efforts and protocol iterations. Besides, it allows for opportunistic control center reporting while avoiding man-in-the-middle and replay attacks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCryptographic Implementations and SecurityFrench-language works237,207