MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7043137312

Security for Rural Public Computing

2008· dissertation· en· W7043137312 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2008
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicICT in Developing Communities
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsInteractive kioskThe InternetMobile devicePublic-key cryptographyTrusted ComputingCryptographyUbiquitous computingInternet access
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current research on securing public computing infrastructure like Internet kiosks has focused on the use of smartphones to establish trust in a computing platform or to offload the processing of sensitive information, and the use of new cryptosystems such as Hierarchical Identity-based Encryption (HIBE) to protect kiosk user data. Challenges posed by rural kiosks, specifically (a) the absence of specialized hardware features such as Trusted Platform Modules (TPMs) or a modifiable BIOS in older recycled PCs, (b) the potential use of periodically disconnected links between kiosks and the Internet, (c) the absence of a production-ready implementation of HIBE and (d) the limited availability of smartphones in most developing regions make these approaches difficult, if not impossible, to implement in a rural public computing scenario. In this thesis, I present a practical, unobtrusive and easy-to-use security architecture for rural public computing that uses a combination of physical and cryptographic mechanisms to protect user data, public computing infrastructure and handheld devices that access this infrastructure. Key contributions of this work include (a) a detailed threat analysis of such systems with a particular focus on rural Internet kiosks and handheld devices, (b) a security architecture for rural public computing infrastructure that does not require any specialized hardware, (c) an application-independent and backward-compatible security API for securely sending and receiving data between these systems and the Internet that can operate over delay tolerant links,
\n(d) an implementation of my scheme for rural Internet kiosks and (e) a performance evaluation of this implementation to demonstrate its feasibility.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.380
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.197 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Same topicICT in Developing CommunitiesFrench-language works237,207