MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113990471 · doi:10.3390/info12010002

The Spatial Analysis of the Malicious Uniform Resource Locators (URLs): 2016 Dataset Case Study

2020· article· en· W3113990471 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Raid Amin, Hakkı Erhan Sevil, Salih Kocak, Guillermo Francia, Philip Hoover

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicData-Driven Disease Surveillance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalwareComputer scienceThe InternetCluster (spacecraft)PhishingResource (disambiguation)Computer securityPopulationWorld Wide WebDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we aimed to identify spatial clusters of countries with high rates of cyber attacks directed at other countries. The cyber attack dataset was obtained from Canadian Institute for Cybersecurity, with over 110,000 Uniform Resource Locators (URLs), which were classified into one of 5 categories: benign, phishing, malware, spam, or defacement. The disease surveillance software SaTScanTM was used to perform a spatial analysis of the country of origin for each cyber attack. It allowed the identification of spatial and space-time clusters of locations with unusually high counts or rates of cyber attacks. Number of internet users per country obtained from the 2016 CIA World Factbook was used as the population baseline for computing rates and Poisson analysis in SaTScanTM. The clusters were tested for significance with a Monte Carlo study within SaTScanTM, where any cluster with p < 0.05 was designated as a significant cyber attack cluster. Results using the rate of the different types of malicious URL cyber attacks are presented in this paper. This novel approach of studying cyber attacks from a spatial perspective provides an invaluable relative risk assessment for each type of cyber attack that originated from a particular country.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInformationSame topicData-Driven Disease SurveillanceFrench-language works237,207