Polynomial‐Based Google Map Graphical Password System against Shoulder‐Surfing Attacks in Cloud Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Text password systems are commonly used for identity authentication to access different kinds of data resources or services in cloud environment. However, in the text password systems, the main issue is that it is very hard for users to remember long random alphanumeric strings due to the long‐term memory limitation of the human brain. To address this issue, graphical passwords are accordingly proposed based on the fact that humans have better memory for images than alphanumeric strings. Recently, a Google map graphical password (GMGP) system is proposed, in which a specific location of Google Map is preset as a password for authentication. Unfortunately, the use of graphical passwords increases the risk of exposing passwords under shoulder‐surfing attacks. A snooper can easily look over someone’s shoulder to get the information of a location on map than a text password from a distance, and thus the shoulder‐surfing attacks are more serious for graphical passwords than for text passwords. To overcome this issue, we design a polynomial‐based Google map graphical password (P‐GMGP) system. The proposed P‐GMGP system can not only resist the shoulder‐surfing attacks effectively, but also need much fewer challenge‐response rounds than the GMGP system for authentication. Moreover, the P‐GMGP system is extended to allow a user to be authenticated in cloud environment effectively and efficiently.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".