Reasoning about Probabilistic Defense Mechanisms against Remote Attacks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite numerous countermeasures proposed by practitioners and researchers, remote control-flow alteration of programs with memory-safety vulnerabilities continues to be a realistic threat. Guaranteeing that complex software is completely free of memory-safety vulnerabilities is extremely expensive. Probabilistic countermeasures that depend on random secret keys are interesting, because they are an inexpensive way to raise the bar for attackers who aim to exploit memory-safety vulnerabilities. Moreover, some countermeasures even support legacy systems. However, it is unclear how to quantify and compare the effectiveness of different probabilistic countermeasures or combinations of such countermeasures. In this paper we propose a methodology to rigorously derive security bounds for probabilistic countermeasures. We argue that by representing security notions in this setting as events in probabilistic games, similarly as done with cryptographic security definitions, concrete and asymptotic guarantees can be obtained against realistic attackers. These guarantees shed light on the effectiveness of single countermeasures and their composition and allow practitioners to more precisely gauge the risk of an attack.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".