MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2744402374 · doi:10.1109/tdsc.2019.2908907

Comparative Analysis and Framework Evaluating Mimicry-Resistant and Invisible Web Authentication Schemes

2020· preprint· en· W2744402374 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUser Authentication and Security Systems
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMimicryComputer scienceAuthentication (law)PasswordUsabilityComputer securityWorld Wide WebMulti-factor authenticationInternet privacyHuman–computer interactionAuthentication protocolBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many password alternatives for web authentication proposed over the years, despite having different designs and objectives, all predominantly rely on the knowledge of some secret. This motivates us, herein, to provide the first detailed exploration of the integration of a fundamentally different element of defense into the design of web authentication schemes: a mimicry-resistance dimension. We analyze web authentication mechanisms with respect to new usability and security properties related to mimicry-resistance (augmenting the UDS framework), and in particular evaluate invisible techniques (those requiring neither user actions, nor awareness) that provide some mimicry-resistance (unlike those relying solely on static secrets), including device fingerprinting schemes, PUFs (physically unclonable functions), and a subset of Internet geolocation mechanisms.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.275 · 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