MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966065488 · doi:10.3390/s19153362

Automated Vulnerability Discovery and Exploitation in the Internet of Things

2019· article· en· W2966065488 on OpenAlexaff
Zhongru Wang, Yuntao Zhang, Zhihong Tian, Qiang Ruan, Tong Liu, Haichen Wang, Zhehui Liu, Jiayi Lin, Binxing Fang, Wei Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Malware Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceExploitVulnerability (computing)Fuzz testingVulnerability managementScheduling (production processes)Computer securitySoftwareVulnerability assessmentDistributed computingThe InternetTask (project management)World Wide WebEngineeringSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, automated software vulnerability detection and exploitation in Internet of Things (IoT) has attracted more and more attention, due to IoT’s fast adoption and high social impact. However, the task is challenging and the solutions are non-trivial: the existing methods have limited effectiveness at discovering vulnerabilities capable of compromising IoT systems. To address this, we propose an Automated Vulnerability Discovery and Exploitation framework with a Scheduling strategy, AutoDES that aims to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of vulnerability discovery and exploitation. In the vulnerability discovery stage, we use our Anti-Driller technique to mitigate the “path explosion” problem. This approach first generates a specific input proceeding from symbolic execution based on a Control Flow Graph (CFG). It then leverages a mutation-based fuzzer to find vulnerabilities while avoiding invalid mutations. In the vulnerability exploitation stage, we analyze the characteristics of vulnerabilities and then propose to generate exploits, via the use of several proposed attack techniques that can produce a shell based on the detected vulnerabilities. We also propose a genetic algorithm (GA)-based scheduling strategy (AutoS) that helps with assigning the computing resources dynamically and efficiently. The extensive experimental results on the RHG 2018 challenge dataset and the BCTF-RHG 2019 challenge dataset clearly demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed framework.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicAdvanced Malware Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207