MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7006340939

Towards A Security Framework for Smartphone Operating Systems

2017· dissertation· en· W7006340939 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLepidoptera: Biology and Taxonomy
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAndroid (operating system)UsabilitySecurity testingLogical securityComputer security modelSecurity policySecurity serviceSecurity controlsSoftware security assurance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smartphones have become an integral part of our daily lives that offer a multitude of features in a small form factor. Users store sensitive personal information on their phones and perform financial transactions. Moreover, people use their personal phones to access corporate/government resources and vice versa. We perform tasks on smartphones that require multiple security models to execute the tasks securely. However, most smartphone operating systems need to focus on the usability which compromises security. This thesis presents a security framework for smartphone operating systems. The core idea of the framework resembles the security of a modern smart city. The operating system acts as the government of the city and the applications are the citizens. It has components to protect resources and perform policing (monitor, detect, and control). There are multiple application zones with different security constraints. Smartphones with this framework automatically switch to a different security mode based on the detected context to satisfy the security requirements in different use cases. Installed applications are monitored to identify anomalous behavior as well as certain specific malicious behavior like click-fraud. The operation of the framework is mostly automated and requires no input from users for default operations. We implement a significant portion of the framework for Android and our experiments suggest that the framework improves the overall security of Android increasing its ability to protect user resources as well as to detect and control malware.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)→Same topicLepidoptera: Biology and Taxonomy→French-language works237,207→