MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Designing Security User Profiles via Anomaly Detection for User Authentication

2020· article· en· W3114527962 on OpenAlexaff
Iman I. M. Abu Sulayman, Abdelkader Ouda

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Malware Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAnomaly detectionAuthentication (law)Computer securityData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to detect the anomalous user behavior automatically and create user profiles, storing fresh and accurate security aspect user information, is important for systems administration, security, and development. This paper describes the best utilization of machine learning-based anomaly detection analysis, which is capable of distinguishing data that has security/identification potentials. Thereby, a novel technique for generating dynamic security user profiles is proposed. The real-time analytical outcomes of the anomaly detection methods are encapsulated into structured user profile records. These records store the sudden changing of the user's data, along with the real-time uniquely identifiable users' information. Each record is a unique entity describing a rear users' behavior, which have a substantial influence on user's identity verification. The verification process is in the form of user challenging questions generated from these stored records. The natural of the generated user profiles guarantee that these questions would be chosen such that the security and usability requirements are maintained. "Security" because each question is issued only once to protect the users' responses from being compromised. "Usability" because the data is fresh (real-time data) to help the legitimate user to easily remember and successfully complete the challenge. Real-world scenarios have been given showing the benefits of these challenging questions in building secure knowledge-based user authentication systems.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.607
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Malware Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207