MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241939366 · doi:10.2495/safe-v3-n4-307-317

New conceptual representation of collision attack in wireless sensor networks

2013· article· en· W4241939366 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Safety and Security Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSecurity in Wireless Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWireless sensor networkCollisionComputer scienceRepresentation (politics)Computer networkWirelessComputer securityTelecommunicationsPolitical sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diagrammatic methodologies for modeling information security attacks have been developed in various forms (e.g. attack trees, use cases, and misuse cases) and applied for many purposes (e.g. security requirements specifi cation and identifi cation of commonly occurring attack patterns). They play an important role in the development of more effective communication between technical and nontechnical participants than that made possible by text. Recently, Unifi ed Modeling Language (UML) sequence diagrams have been used to model security attacks (e.g. collision attacks and unintelligent replay attacks) in wireless sensor networks (WSNs). WSNs require protection to preserve the confi dentiality and integrity of sensitive information as well as availability of the system. This is an important research issue because WSNs are used in critical applications such as military battlefi eld surveillance, industrial process monitoring and control, and machine health monitoring. This paper describes an alternative fl ow-based approach for visualizing security attacks in terms of depiction of behavioral interactions. It models security attacks in WSNs and contrasts this method with the sequence-based diagrammatic method. The comparison provides an initial appraisal of the technique with reference to a well-known process modeling methodology. The results indicate that the method can capture the interweaving of attack events to achieve a more complete and detailed picture necessary for better understanding.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.232 · 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