A mutation framework for evaluating security analysis tools in IoT applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary With the growing and widespread use of Internet of Things (IoT) in our daily life, its security is becoming more crucial. To ensure information security, we require better security analysis tools for IoT applications. Hence, this paper presents an automated framework to evaluate taint‐flow analysis tools in the domain of IoT applications. First, we propose a set of mutational operators tailored to evaluate three types of sensitivity analysis, flow, path and context sensitivity. Then we developed mutators to automatically generate mutants for those types. We demonstrated the framework on a subset of mutational operators to evaluate three taint‐flow analysers, SaINT, Taint‐Things and FlowsMiner. Our framework and experiments ranked the taint analysis tools according to precision and recall as follows: Taint‐Things (99% recall, 100% precision), FlowsMiner (100% recall, 87.6% precision) and SaINT (100% recall, 56.8% precision). To the best of our knowledge, our framework is the first framework to address the need for evaluating taint‐flow analysis tools and specifically those developed for IoT SmartThings applications.
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 | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".