MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235825709 · doi:10.1109/icse.2013.6606670

Semantic smells and errors in access control models: A case study in PHP

2013· article· en· W4235825709 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venue2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb Application Security Vulnerabilities
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceRelevance (law)Semantics (computer science)Access controlControl (management)Information retrievalCode smellWorld Wide WebComputer securityArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageSoftwareSoftware quality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Access control models implement mechanisms to restrict access to sensitive data from unprivileged users. Access controls typically check privileges that capture the semantics of the operations they protect. Semantic smells and errors in access control models stem from privileges that are partially or totally unrelated to the action they protect. This paper presents a novel approach, partly based on static analysis and information retrieval techniques, for the automatic detection of semantic smells and errors in access control models. Investigation of the case study application revealed 31 smells and 2 errors. Errors were reported to developers who quickly confirmed their relevance and took actions to correct them. Based on the obtained results, we also propose three categories of semantic smells and errors to lay the foundations for further research on access control smells in other systems and domains.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.245 · 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