MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410632638 · doi:10.22215/etd/2025-16421

Single Sign-On (SSO) and its Intersection with Phishing Attacks: An Investigation

2025· dissertation· en· W4410632638 on OpenAlexaff
Nareen Azad Khurshid

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpam and Phishing Detection
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhishingIntersection (aeronautics)Sign (mathematics)Single sign-onComputer securityComputer scienceWorld Wide WebEngineeringAuthentication (law)MathematicsThe InternetTransport engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Users are increasingly prompted to click login links and login buttons from their emails and on websites, as services offer alternative login methods extending beyond traditional usernames and passwords. Single sign-on (SSO) simplifies password management by allowing users to login to services, like Spotify, Slack, Zoom, GitHub, Airbnb, and many more, using external identity providers (IDPs) like Google, Facebook, and Apple, to authenticate users using their already existing email address and accounts. We define a new phishing attack which is specifically targeted to SSO users, exploiting the “login with XYZ” button or link that takes the user to the malicious website. We then explore the possible consequences, specifically susceptibility to this new SSO-based phishing attack, questioning whether developing the habit of clicking on these buttons makes them disproportionately susceptible to this new type of phishing. To accomplish this, we created a user-study that included instances of SSO-based phishing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpam and Phishing DetectionFrench-language works237,207