MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Mutation Framework for Evaluating Security Analysis Tools in IoT Applications

2020· article· en· W3014147095 on OpenAlexaff
Sajeda Parveen, Manar H. Alalfi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Malware Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTaint checkingSensitivity (control systems)Set (abstract data type)Internet of ThingsDomain (mathematical analysis)Flow (mathematics)Process (computing)Security analysisMutation testingData miningMutationEmbedded systemProgramming languageSoftwareComputer securityEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present an automated framework to evaluate taint flow analysis tools in the domain of IoT (Internet of things) apps. First, we propose a set of mutational operators tailored to evaluate flow-sensitive analysis tools. Then we developed mutators to automatically generate mutants for this type of sensitivity analysis. We demonstrated the framework on flow- sensitivity mutational operators to evaluate two taint flow analyzers, SaINT and Taint-Things. To the best of our knowledge, our framework is the first framework to address the need for evaluating taint flow analysis tools specifically developed for IoT SmartThings apps.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Malware Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207