MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244224115 · doi:10.13052/2245-1439.625

Rethinking the Use of Resource Hints in HTML5: Is Faster Always Better!?

2017· article· en· W4244224115 on OpenAlexaff
Natalija Vlajic, Xun Shi, Hamzeh Roumani, Pooria Madani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cyber Security and Mobility · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Malware Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMalwareResource (disambiguation)ReputationWorld Wide WebVulnerability (computing)HTML5Computer securityCompromiseAnalyticsJavaScriptInternet privacyData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To date, much of the development in Web-related technologies has been driven by the users’ quest for ever faster and more intuitive WWW. One of the most recent trends in this development is built around the idea that a user’s WWW experience can further be improved by predicting and/or preloading Web resources that are likely sought by the user, ahead of time. Resource hints is a set of features introduced in HTML5 and intended to support the idea of predictive preloading in the WWW. Inspite of the fact that resource hints were originally intended to enhance the online user experience, their introduction has unfortunately created a vulnerability that can be exploited to attack the user’s privacy, security and reputation, or to turn the user’s computer into a bot that can compromise the integrity of business analytics. In this article we outline six different scenarios (i.e., attacks) in which the resource hints could end up turning the browser into a dangerous tool that acts without the knowledge of and/or against its very own user. What makes these attacks particularly concerning is the fact that they are extremely easy to execute, and they do not require that any form of client-side malware be implanted on the user machine. While one of the attacks is (just) a new form of the well-known cross-site request forgery attacks, the other attacks have not been addressed much or at all in the research literature. Through this work, we ultimate hope to make the wider Internet community critically rethink the way the resource hints are implemented and used in today’sWWW.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.021
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cyber Security and MobilitySame topicAdvanced Malware Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207