MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413556052 · doi:10.1109/jiot.2025.3602717

Evaluating Generative Reasoning Models for Credential Tweaking and Lightweight Client-Side Defense in IoT Ecosystems

2025· article· en· W4413556052 on OpenAlexaff
Erika Thea Ajes, Mahdi Rabbani, Zeynab Anbiaee, Rongxing Lu, Mansur Mirani, Gunjan Piya, Igor Opushnyev, Sajjad Dadkhah

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Internet of Things Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Canadian institutionsVancouver Infectious Diseases CentreUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredentialComputer scienceTweakingEmulationGadgetComputer securityCamouflageHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Generative reasoning models introduce a new paradigm in cybersecurity, enabling not only novel defenses but also sophisticated attack simulations. This paper investigates the use of open-source reasoning models to simulate credential tweaking behavior and enhance password-based authentication security in IoT environments. We propose Hybrid Similarity Scoring (HSS) and its user-contextualized variant HSSuser, a lightweight, client-side similarity metric combining structural (Damerau-Levenshtein) and character-distribution (cosine similarity) components to detect password reuse and subtle modifications or tweaks in real time. Following NIST guidelines, we analyzed over 4 billion password pairs from breached datasets and used five prompt designs in various reasoning models such as DeepSeek-R1, Qwen-QwQ, Phi4-Reasoning, Qwen3, and Magistral series to generate password variants mimicking attacker strategies. Experimental results show that reasoning models can produce highly similar modifications resembling real-world password reuse patterns, while prompt reframing significantly reduces risky outputs. HSS effectively quantifies these behaviors and is suitable for deployment in constrained IoT devices, offering an intent-aware, proactive layer of client-side defense against AIenhanced credential 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.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.689

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.286 · 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
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 venueIEEE Internet of Things JournalSame topicIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingFrench-language works237,207