Automation-Based User Input Sql Injection Detection and Prevention Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autodect framework protects management information systems (MIS) and databases from user input SQL injection attacks. This framework overcomes intrusion or penetration into the system by automatically detecting and preventing attacks from the user input end. The attack intentions is also known since it is linked to a proxy database, which has a normal and abnormal code vector profiles that helps to gather information about the intent as well as knowing the areas of interest while conducting the attack. The information about the attack is forwarded to Autodect knowledge base (database), meaning that any successive attacks from the proxy database will be compared to the existing attack pattern logs in the knowledge base, in future this knowledge base-driven database will help organizations to analyze trends of attackers, profile them and deter them. The research evaluated the existing security frameworks used to prevent user input SQL injection; analysis was also done on the factors that lead to the detection of SQL injection. This knowledge-based framework is able to predict the end goal of any injected attack vector. (Known and unknown signatures). Experiments were conducted on true and simulation websites and open-source datasets to analyze the performance and a comparison drawn between the Autodect framework and other existing tools. The research showed that Autodect framework has an accuracy level of 0.98. The research found a gap that all existing tools and frameworks never came up with a standard datasets for sql injection, neither do we have a universally accepted standard data set.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".