MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963961461 · doi:10.20904/281-2037

Analysis of SQL Injection Detection Techniques

2017· article· en· W2963961461 on OpenAlexaff
Jai Puneet Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueTheoretical and Applied Informatics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb Application Security Vulnerabilities
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSQL injectionSQLDatabaseProgramming languageInformation retrievalQuery by Example

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SQL Injection is one of the vulnerabilities in OWASP's Top Ten List for Web Based Application Exploitation. These type of attacks take place on Dynamic Web applications as they interact with databases for various operations. Current Content Management System like Drupal, Joomla or Wordpress have all information stored in their databases. A single intrusion into these type of websites can lead to overall control of websites by an attacker. Researchers are aware of basic SQL Injection attacks, but there are numerous SQL Injection attacks which are yet to be prevented and detected. Over here, we present the extensive review for the Advanced SQL Injection attack such as Fast Flux SQL Injection, Compounded SQL Injection and Deep Blind SQL Injection. We also analyze the detection and prevention using the classical methods as well as modern approaches. We will be discussing the Comparative Evaluation for prevention of SQL Injection.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations27
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheoretical and Applied InformaticsSame topicWeb Application Security VulnerabilitiesFrench-language works237,207