MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965766089 · doi:10.1504/ijsn.2019.10022702

Techniques to detect data leakage in mobile applications

2019· article· en· W2965766089 on OpenAlex
Eduardo Souto, Thiago Rocha, Khalil El Khatib

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

VenueInternational Journal of Security and Networks · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Malware Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePopularityLeakage (economics)Mobile deviceInformation leakageComputer securityData scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The popularity of mobile devices has skyrocketed over the past few years and has consequently given rise to various attacks in mobile platforms. The most serious among these threats is data leakage as most devices store sensitive information about their users, including location, bank information, to list a few. There have been a large number of data leakage detection proposals for mobile platforms, and a number of researches have looked at specific aspects of the mobile environment and used several techniques to provide protection. This survey provides an analysis of the data leakage problem, explains what it is, what kind of data it can expose, and the main techniques that have been used to circumvent this problem. It also looks at these various individual efforts and grouped them into categories. We also discuss the strengths and shortcomings of these efforts. Finally, some future works and opportunities of research are presented.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.286 · 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