MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392190252 · doi:10.18280/isi.290121

Risk Management Analysis of SMK Telkom Makassar's Integrated Academic Information System in Compliance with ISO 31000 Standards

2024· article· en· W4392190252 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Supriadi Sahibu, Abdul Sakti, Akbar Iskandar

Bibliographic record

VenueIngénierie des systèmes d information · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompliance (psychology)EngineeringBusinessPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This investigation seeks to analyze the security risks associated with the Integrated Academic Information System (iGracias) application at SMK Telkom Makassar, using the ISO 31000 standards as a benchmark.The study employs the ISO 31000:2018 Information Technology Risk Management methodology, encompassing stages of risk identification, risk analysis, risk evaluation, and risk treatment.This methodology enables the researchers to ascertain that risks have been accurately identified, thoroughly analyzed, and appropriately mitigated, minimizing their potential impact on the organization.The findings reveal security issues in the iGracias application at SMK Telkom Makassar, identified through scanning with NMAP Kali Linux, which exposed several open ports, including port 21/tcp, port 22/tcp, and port 25/tcp.Consequently, these open ports present potential opportunities for unauthorized access and cyber-attacks.Moreover, the Mobile Security Framework (MobSF) test results yielded a Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) of 6.1, indicating a medium security level for the iGracias application in the Android environment.User responses revealed process risk at 84%, system security risk at 62%, and incidental risk at 57%.The outcomes of this investigation may serve as a guide in formulating and implementing strategies to uphold the security and quality of the applications in use.

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 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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.008
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIngénierie des systèmes d informationSame topicSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesFrench-language works237,207