MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2500304132 · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2016.08.071

Experimental Analysis of Tools Used for Doxing and Proposed New Transforms to Help Organizations Protect against Doxing Attacks

2016· article· en· W2500304132 on OpenAlexaff
Parul Khanna, Pavol Zavarsky, Dale Lindskog

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia Computer Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University of Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePasswordComputer securityPassword crackingSocial engineering (security)Social mediaArchitectureData scienceInternet privacyWorld Wide WebPassword strengthOne-time password

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Doxing is a term derived from documents, and hence consists of collecting information on an organization or individual through social media websites, search engines, password cracking methods, social engineering tools and other sources of publicly displayed information. The main purpose of doxing attacks is to threaten, embarrass, harass and humiliate the organization or individual. Various tools are used to perform doxing. Tools such as Maltego visualize organization's architecture which helps in determining weak links within the organization. This paper discusses limitations of Maltego Chlorine CE 3.6.0 and suggests measures as to how organizations can use these tools to protect themselves from doxing 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcedia Computer ScienceSame topicCybercrime and Law Enforcement StudiesFrench-language works237,207