MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888975450

The aftermath of a crypto-ransomware attack at a large academic institution

2018· article· en· W2888975450 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Malware Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRansomwareRansomComputer securityInstitutionAcademic institutionProductivityInternet privacyProcess (computing)MalwareBusinessComputer sciencePolitical scienceEconomicsLawLibrary science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2016, a large North American university was subject to a significant crypto-ransomware attack and did not pay the ransom. We conducted a survey with 150 respondents and interviews with 30 affected students, staff, and faculty in the immediate aftermath to understand their experiences during the attack and the recovery process. We provide analysis of the technological, productivity, and personal and social impact of ransomware attacks, including previously unaccounted secondary costs. We suggest strategies for comprehensive cyber-response plans that include human factors, and highlight the importance of communication. We conclude with a Ransomware Process for Organizations diagram summarizing the additional contributing factors beyond those relevant to individual infections.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.441
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.219 · 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