MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947158132 · doi:10.1145/3284748

Countermeasures against Worm Spreading

2019· review· en· W2947158132 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

VenueACM Computing Surveys · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs)
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMalwareCountermeasureWireless ad hoc networkComputer securityWirelessVehicular ad hoc networkTelecommunicationsComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vehicular ad hoc networks (VANETs) are essential components of the intelligent transport systems. They are attracting an increasing amount of interest in research and industrial sectors. Vehicular nodes are capable of transporting, sensing, processing information, and wireless communication, which makes them more vulnerable to worm infections than conventional hosts. This survey provides an overview on worm spreading over VANETs. We first briefly introduce the computer worms. Then the V2X communication and applications are discussed from malware and worms propagation perspective to show the indispensability of studying the characteristics of worm propagating on VANETs. The recent literature on worm spreading and containment on VANETs are categorized based on their research methods. The improvements and limitations of the existing studies are discussed. Next, the main factors influencing worm spreading in vehicular networks are discussed followed by a summary of countermeasure strategies designed to deal with these worms.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.240 · 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