Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision		 Previous revision
Next revisionBoth sides next revision
public:papers:eurousec2016 [2016-07-18 06:40] – vstavovapublic:papers:eurousec2016 [2016-07-18 07:28] – vstavova
Line 2: Line 2:
 **Authors: Vlasta Stavova, Vashek Matyas, Mike Just** **Authors: Vlasta Stavova, Vashek Matyas, Mike Just**
  
-<note tip>FIXME 8-)</note> 
  
-**Abstract:** //We review the most important secrecy amplification protocols, which are especially suitable for ad-hoc networks of devices with limited resources, providing additional resistance against various attacks +**Abstract:** We conducted a large-scale online study with 26,000 software installations during which we asked user (participants) whether they wanted to enable or disable the detection of Potentially Unwanted Applications (PUAs - potentially malicious software, such as adware or spyware). PUAs are notoriously difficult to manage, e.g., legal challenges can preclude default options that could otherwise be set for PUAs detection or removal. Our study was performed with an IT security software provider (ESET) who gave us access to the participants (antivirus product beta users). We used a between-subjects design with 15 conditions (a starting-point control interface, and 14 new "warning" interfaces). Despite the fact that many software companies (e.g., Microsoft, AVAST, AVG, McAfee, Kaspersky Lab) are struggling with PUAs detection, there are few studies focused on this topic.
-on used cryptographic keys without necessity for asymmetric cryptography. We discuss and evaluate different designs as well as approaches to create new protocols. A special focus is given to suitability of these protocols with respect to different underlying key distribution schemes and also to open research questions.//+
  
-  * Conference page: [[http://wistp2015.wistp.org/|WISTP 2015]]+Our results indicate a strong desire for PUAs detection by users. In particular, enabling PUAs detection was chosen by 74.5% of our participants for our initial control interface. Further, a modified interface in which the option to enable PUAs detection was presented first resulted in 89.8% of participants choosing to enable PUAs detection (a statistically significant increase from the control) 
 + 
 +  * Conference page: [[https://eurousec.secuso.org/2016|EuroUSEC 2016]]
   * Download author pre-print of the paper: {{:public:papers:secamplif_wistp15.pdf|pdf}}   * Download author pre-print of the paper: {{:public:papers:secamplif_wistp15.pdf|pdf}}
-  * Download extended version of paper: {{:public:papers:secamplif_tr15_final.pdf|FIMU-RS-2015-01}} (technical report, FI MUNI) +  * Download presentation: {{:public:papers:eurousec2016presentation.pdf|pdf}} 
-  * Download presentation: {{:public:papers:secamplif_wistp15_svenda_slides.pdf|pdf}} + 
-  * Download used simulator and configuration files: {{:public:papers:sensorsim.zip|zip source code}}, {{:public:papers:sensorsim.exe.zip|executable file}}+
  
 **Bibtex:** **Bibtex:**
Line 58: Line 57:
 //Figure showing increase in the number of secured links per message used during the protocol execution (random compromise pattern, 20.3 legal neighbours on average). The higher value is better - more links are secured per single message. Node-oriented protocols send significantly more messages with rising network density making them less effective per single message. This stands especially for 4-party node-oriented protocols, which are the least effective. The best tradeoff shows group-oriented and hybrid protocols.//  //Figure showing increase in the number of secured links per message used during the protocol execution (random compromise pattern, 20.3 legal neighbours on average). The higher value is better - more links are secured per single message. Node-oriented protocols send significantly more messages with rising network density making them less effective per single message. This stands especially for 4-party node-oriented protocols, which are the least effective. The best tradeoff shows group-oriented and hybrid protocols.// 
    
 +Discussed variants to be added at the end of