MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309676759 · doi:10.1109/cns56114.2022.9947230

Survey of Remote TLS Vulnerability Scanning Tools and Snapshot of TLS Use in Banking Sector

2022· article· en· W4309676759 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
TopicMobile Agent-Based Network Management
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnapshot (computer storage)PopularityComputer securityComputer scienceVulnerability (computing)Protocol (science)Transport Layer SecurityDatabaseMedicineEncryptionPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the increasing popularity and real-world use of TLS, the number of vulnerabilities identified in this protocol has also grown. As a result, the protocol has undergone several revisions, with TLS 1.3 being its latest and currently most secure version. In this paper we provide a brief review of some of the most critical vulnerabilities of the earlier versions of TLS (TLS 1.2 and 1.1), and we survey the performance of several popular TLS scanning tools. The paper also provides a summary of our findings obtained by performing remote TLS scanning of the world's 50 largest banks. Contrary to what one would expect, the state of TLS security in the surveyed banks appears to be at (or below) the state of TLS security across the whole WWW. For example, at present less than 50% of the surveyed banks deploy TLS 1.3, while a significant number of them appear vulnerable to some well-known TLS-based attacks.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMobile Agent-Based Network ManagementFrench-language works237,207