MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293254024 · doi:10.1109/pst55820.2022.9851991

Garage Door Openers: A Rolling Code Protocol Case Study

2022· article· en· W4293254024 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBluetooth and Wireless Communication Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtocol (science)DoorsComputer scienceSoftware deploymentComputer securityCode (set theory)WirelessAdversaryComputer networkMobile deviceAccess controlCryptographic protocolEmbedded systemTelecommunicationsOperating systemCryptography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rolling code is a keyless access protocol used prominently for garage doors and vehicles entry. In this work, we examine the security of three garage door opener systems which are widely used in the north American markets. Such openers are electronically controlled by wireless remotes and mobile applications. We reverse engineer their rolling code protocol and demonstrate practical attacks that enable an adversary to open the garage door after wirelessly sniffing only one open/close signal produced by the remote control device owner. Our security analysis reveals that such attacks are due to vulnerabilities in the deployment of the rolling code protocol in two out of the three investigated brands. Responsible disclosure procedures have been followed prior to the dissemination of our results.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.003
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.277 · 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