MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283070194 · doi:10.35940/ijitee.h9119.0711822

Machine Learning Based Password Strength Analysis

2022· article· en· W4283070194 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUser Authentication and Security Systems
Canadian institutionsHorizon College and Seminary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPasswordComputer sciencePassword strengthCognitive passwordPassword crackingComputer securityRandom forestS/KEYOne-time passwordArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Passwords, as the most used method of authentication because to its ease of implementation, allow attackers to get access to the accounts owned by others by means of cracking passwords. This is cause of the similar patterns that users use to create a password, like dictionary words, common phrases, person and location names, keyboard pattern, and so on. Multiple password cracking techniques had been introduced to predict the password offline or online, with the majority of records say the one with weak password or familiar password patterns being cracked. This suggested prototype implements numerous machine learning methods such as Decision Tree (DT), Nave Bayes (NB), Logistic Regression (LR), and Random Forest (RF) on a web application in real time to force users to choose a secure password. This results in the user’s account being logged into if particularly the password strength from more than half of the algorithms is strong.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.215 · 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