86
¦~«×
1. Web
System Performance Evaluation, ¥D«ù¤H, ¤u¬ã°|¹q³q©Ò, 86/7-87/6
2. Design
of Name Service for Collaborative Web Proxy Servers, ¥D«ù¤H, °ê¬ì·|, 86/8-87/7
3. A
Prototype System of Host-based Virtual Private Network, ¦@¦P¥D«ù¤H, ¤¤¬ì°|, 87/8-88/7
4. Towards
the Building of a Web-Based Collaborative Computing Environment, ¨ó¦P¬ã¨s¤Hû, °ê¬ì·|¹q«H°ê®a«¬pµe, 87/8-88/7
87
¦~«×
5. Design
of Name Service for Collaborative Web Proxy Servers, ¥D«ù¤H, °ê¬ì·|, 87/8-88/7¡C
6. A
Prototype System of Host-based Virtual Private Network, ¦@¦P¥D«ù¤H, ¤¤¬ì°|, 87/8-88/7¡C§¹¦¨¤@ÓÂI¹ïÂIªºµêÀÀ¥[±K³q¹D¨t²Î¡C
88
¦~«×
7.¬F©²¾ÌÃÒºÞ²z¤¤¤ß¦w¥þ¨¾Å@»P¦w¥þ±j¤Æ¤ÀªR¬ã¨s, 88/10-89/09, ¤¤µØ¹q«H©Ò¡C
8.
Digital library/museum content management: rights management
89
¦~«×
9. °õ¦æ¤¤¬ã°|¸ê°T©Ò©Ò¤ºpµe¡y¸ê°Tºô»Ú¦X§@¹êÅç«Ç¤§¬ã¨s»P¶}µo-¦w¥þºÞ²z¾÷¨î¡z
10 ¦æ°ê¬ì·|pµe¡u¦æ°ÊµêÀÀ±M½u¤§¦w¥þµ{¦¡¥N²z¨t²Î¡v,NSC89-2213-E-001-044¡A89/08¡ã90/07
11 °õ¦æ°ê»Ú¼Æ¦ì¹Ï®ÑÀ]¦X§@¬ã¨spµe--IDLP¡Ð´¼¼z°]²£Åv«OÅ@¾÷¨î¬ã¨s¡Ð¼Æ¦ì¹Ï®ÑÀ]¤º²[«OÅ@¤Î¹q¤lª©ÅvºÞ²z, NSC89-2750-P-
12. °õ¦æ¤¤¬ã°|¥DÃDpµe¡y°ê®a¨åÂÃ¼Æ¦ì¤Æ±M®× ¡V
rights management¡z
13. °õ¦æ TW-CERT ¬ã¨spµe (®üxÁ`³¡¡B°ê¨¾³¡¡B¬ã¦Ò·|µ¥³æ¦ì©e°Upµe)
14. »P¤¤ì¤j¾Ç¸ê¤u¨t
90 ¦~«×
15. °õ¦æ©Ò¤ºpµe»P°ê¬ì·|pµe¡y¸ê°Tºô»Ú¦X§@¹êÅç«Ç¤§¬ã¨s»P¶}µo-¦w¥þºÞ²z¾÷¨î¡z
16°õ¦æ°ê»Ú¼Æ¦ì¹Ï®ÑÀ]¦X§@¬ã¨spµe--IDLP¡Ð´¼¼z°]²£Åv«OÅ@¾÷¨î¬ã¨s¡Ð¼Æ¦ì¹Ï®ÑÀ]¤º²[«OÅ@¤Î¹q¤lª©ÅvºÞ²z, 90/08¡ã91/07¡C
17°õ¦æ¤¤¬ã°|¥DÃDpµe¡y°ê®a¨åÂÃ¼Æ¦ì¤Æ±M®× ¡V
rights management¡z
18 °õ¦æ TW-CERT ¬ã¨spµe (®üxÁ`³¡¡B°ê¨¾³¡¡B¬ã¦Ò·|µ¥³æ¦ì©e°Upµe)
19. »P¤¤ì¤j¾Ç¸ê¤u¨t¥ÐßNºa±Ð±Â¦@¦P°õ¦æ¬ã¨spµe¡]¤¤µØ¹q«H¬ã¨s©Ò¡B¤¤¬ì°|µ¥©e°Upµe¡^
¤¤µØ¹q«H¬ã¨s©Ò¡G¾ã¦X©Ê¸ê°T¨t²Î¤§¦w¥þ¨¾¿m¾÷¨î¬ã¨s(TL-90
¤¤¬ì°|¡G®zÂI¸ê®Æ®w³]p¬ã¨s(NSC 90-2623-7-033-006)
20 ¦æ¸gÀÙ³¡¤E¤Q¦~«×¬ì§Þ±M®×°ê®a¸ê³q¦w¥þ§Þ³NªA°Èpµe¤À¥]¬ã¨spµe¡y³W¹º§Ú°ê¸ê³q¦w¥þ§Þ³N¬ãµoµ¦²¤¡z, 90/9~90/12
91 ¦~«×
21.
°õ¦æ¤¤¬ã°|¥DÃDpµe¡y°ê®a¨åÂÃ¼Æ¦ì¤Æ±M®× ¡V
rights management¡z¡A92/1¡ã92/12¡C
22.
°õ¦æ TW-CERT ¬ã¨spµe DNS¦w¥þÀË´ú¾÷¨î (TWNIC©e°Upµe), 92/1~92/12¡C
23.
»P¤¤ì¤j¾Ç¸ê¤u¨t¥ÐßNºa±Ð±Â¦@¦P°õ¦æ¤¤µØ¹q«H¬ã¨s©Òpµe¡C
24. °õ¦æ¸gÀÙ³¡¤E¤Q¤@¦~«×¬ì§Þ±M®×°ê®a¸ê³q¦w¥þ§Þ³NªA°Èpµe¤À¥]¬ã¨spµe¡y³W¹º§Ú°ê¸ê³q¦w¥þ¹wĵ¾÷¨î¬ã¨s»P³W¹º¡z, 91/5~91/12
¦@¦P¥D«ù°õ¦æ Open Source Foundry pµe¡A92/1¡ã92/12¡C
l ¥Ø«e¶i¦æ¤¤¤§pµe
|
1. µ{¦¡°ÊºA¦æ¬°¦w¥þ¤ÀªR ¡@¡@µ{¦¡¦æ¬°»P³nÅé¦w¥þ©ÊÃö«Y±K¤Á¡A¥¢±±(crash)ªºµ{¦¡±N¦³¥i¯à³Q¹B¥Î¦Ó¦¨¬°¦w¥þ®zÂI©Ò¦b¡C§ÚÌ«ÜÃø¦bµ{¦¡¥¢±±«á§ä¥X¯u¥¿ì¦]¡A¦]¦¹¦h¼Æ¬ã¨sÂǧU©ó°ÊºAµ{¦¡¹êÅç¡AµÛ«©ó°»´ú¿ù»~»P°Ï§O¥¢±±ªº®Ú·½¡C³nÅé¼t°Ó¬°¤F»°¤W¥«µo¦æªº®É¶¡¡A¥HP¨t²Î±`¦ñÀHµÛ«D¦³·Nªº¹L¥¢¦Ó²£¥Í³nÅ饢±±ªºª¬ªp¡A¦³¨Ç¥u¼vÅT¨t²Îéw©Ê¡A¦³¨Ç«h²£¥Í¦w¥þ®zÂI¡C§Ú̪º¥Ø¼Ð¬O³]p¤u¨ãµ{¦¡¡A¶i¦æ°ÊºA¦w¥þ¤ÀªR¡A»²§U§ä´M¿ù»~ÂI¡A§PÂ_¬O§_¥i¨Ñ¹B¥Î²£¥Í¨t²Î¦w¥þ¯Ê³´¡C ¡@¡@§Ú̺¥ý±N¶}µo°õ¦æºÊ±±¾Þ§@¨t²Î¡C¦¹¨t²Î·|©w®É¶i¦æ°õ¦æª¬ºAºÊ´ú¡AYµ{¦¡¥¢±±¡A¥i¥H«½Æì¥ý°õ¦æ¨BÆJ¡A¹Á¸ÕIJµo¥ý«eªº¿ù»~¡AÂǦ¹¥iÆ[¹î°õ¦æµ{¦¡ªº¤º³¡¦æ¬°¡A¨Ò¦p API ©I¥s§Ç¦C¶¶§Ç¡A©I¥s°Ñ¼Æ»Pªð¦^ÈÃö«Y¡C³o¨Ç¥i¸g¥Ñ¥]ÂШt²Î API ©I¥sªº§Þ³N¹F¦¨¡A¨Ã§PÂ_¨äµ²ªG§_²§±`¡C¹w´Á±N§¹¦¨µ{¦¡ª¬ºAÆ[´ú¨t²Î¡A¥i§PÂ_©ÒÆ[´ú¤§¥¢±±ÂI¬O§_¦w¥þ¬Û¨Ì¡]¬O§_¦w¥þ¥i¹B¥Î©Ê¡^¡C ¡@¡@§Ú̳°Äò±N«Ø¥ß³nÅéÀ³¥Îµ{¦¡»P§@·~¨t²Î¨ç¼Æ¤§¶¡ªº¤¬°Ê¤¶±¡C ¡@¡@¸g¥Ñ¥]ÂЪº§Þ³N¡A¤£¦ý¯à°O¿ý¬ÛÃö«n°Ñ¼Æ¡A¤]¯à±µ¨ü´ú¸Õ«ü¥O¶i¦æ©I¥s°Ñ¼Æ»Pªð¦^¼ÆÈªº¥ô·N´À´«¡C§ÚÌ¥i¥HÀH·N¾Þ§@µ{¦¡¡A§ïÅÜ·Qn¹B§@ªº©I¥s°Ñ¼Æ¡AÆ[¹î¨ä¦^À³ª¬ºA¨Ã§ä¥X¥iºÃªº¥¢±±ÂI¡C§Ú̱N³]p¤¬°Ê¤¶±»P´ú¸ÕÅX°Ê¨t²Î¥H«K±±¨î¥]ÂÐÂI¡A¨Ã´£¨Ñ©I¥sÂI¬ÛÃö¸ê°T¥H²£¥Í¸û²Ó·Lªº´ú¸Õ²[»\²v¡C¹w´Á±N§¹¦¨µ{¦¡¿ù»~ª`¤J´ú¸Õ¨t²Î¡A¦³¨t²Î©Ê¦a¿Eµo¿ù»~ÂI¡A¨Ã²£¥Í¦³·Nªº¦w¥þ¹B¥Îµ{¦¡½X¡C ÃöÁäµü¡G³nÅé¦w¥þ¡B°ÊºA¤ÀªR¡B³nÅé¥]Âо¹¡BCOTS ®zÂI´ú¸Õ¡B¦w¥þ¥i¹B¥Î©Ê ¡@¡@Program
running behavior has much to do with software security. Crashed software may
be exploited to be a potential vulnerability. It is difficult to reconstruct
system failures after a program has crashed. There is much research effort on
detecting program errors and identifying their root causes either by static
analysis or observing their running behavior through dynamic program
instrument. In order to meet the time to market, software releases with
unintended flaws. Some of them cause software crash, while others may
introduce security vulnerabilities. Our goal is to design a tool that helps
analyze program running behavior and determine if it is an exploitable
vulnerability. ¡@¡@We
will develop an execution instrument and interception system. This system
will periodically monitor software running behavior. If the software crashes,
we can roll back to the latest checkpoint and trigger the fault. We will
observe the internal behavior of running programs, such as API call sequence,
call parameters and return values through wrapping system call API techniques,
and determine whether these things are anomalous or not. We expect to develop
a dynamic instrument tool able to determine if the crash site is security
exploitable. ¡@¡@We
investigate the design and implementation of such a tool to instrument the interfaces
between the software application and the operating system functions with an
interactive software wrapper. This wrapper cannot only intercept the
functions to record the parameters and the return value but also receiving
testing directives to replace calling parameters and the return value with
any arbitrary value. We could use this tool to easily instrument the
application, change the intended OS function call parameters with testing
data and observe the response of the application to find out the suspicious
crash sites. We devise a GUI and testing driver to control the wrapper and
provide call site information with finer-grained test coverage. We expect to
complete a fault injection tool systematically generating triggers for
intended exploit code. Keywords: Software Security, Dynamic Analysis, Software Wrapper, COTS
Vulnerability Testing, Security Exploitability 2. ´O¤J¦¡·P´ú¾¹®Ö¤ß´c¦HÀô¹Ò´ú¸Õ»P«OÅ@ ¡@¡@Sensor network ©Ò§G«ØªºÀô¹Ò³q±`¾D¹J¨ìì³]pªÌ©Ò³]·Q¤£¨ìªºª¬ªp¡A¨Ò¦p°ª·Å¡B°ªÀã«×¡B¾_°Ê¡B¹q·½¤£¨¬¡B¹qºÏ¤zÂZµ¥¡A³o¬O°õ¦æÀô¹Ò¤£¦P©Ò¾ÉP¡F¦Ó©Ò·f°tªº¤¶±¹q¸ô©Î¿é¥X¤J¯S©Ê¤]¦³©Ò®t²§¡A³o¬O¤H¬°³]pªº®t²§°ÝÃD¡C³o¨â¤è±ªº²§°Ê¡G°õ¦æÀô¹Ò»P³]pÀô¹Ò¡A¿é¥X¤J¤¶±»P³]p¤¶±¡A³£·|¾ÉPSensor network ªº¤£¥¿±`¤u§@¡C§Ú̬ã¨sªº¥Ø¼Ð¦b©ó¶i¦æ¿ù»~ª`¤J´ú¸Õ»P´c¦HÀô¹Ò¼ÒÀÀ¡A§Æ¾¬¦b§G«Ø¨t²Î«e¡A§ä¥X®Ö¤ß¨t²Î¥i¯àªº®zÂI¯Ê³´¡A¥H´£¦×¥¿¡C¦P®É³]p¬ÛÃö«OÅ@µ{§Ç¡A¦b±Á{¤£¥¿±`¥~¦b±ø¥ó¿Eµoªº±¡ªp¤U¡A¤´¯àºû«ù³Ì§C°ò¥»»Ý¨D¡B¦s¬¡¹B§@¡C¦]¬°¦¹Ãþ«¬®Ö¤ß¨t²Î¥²¶·ºë²¥\¯à¡A¹Bºâ¥\¯à¦³¡A¦p¦ó¦b¦³«×¸ê·½±¡ªp¤U¡A¶i¦æ®e¿ù¾Þ§@¡A¬O¦¹¬ã¨s¨ã¬D¾Ô©Êªº¤u§@¡A§Ú̹wp¹Á¸Õ¦^´_¾É¦Vpºâ(Recovery-oriented Computing)¬ÛÃö³]p¤èªk¡A¦b¤£¼W¥[¦h¾l¤¸¥ó±¡ªp¤U¡A¹F¦¨±j°·©Ê®Ö¤ß³]pªº»Ý¨D¡C¨Æ«eªº´c¦HÀô¹Ò¼ÒÀÀ¤]¬O³]pªº«ÂI¡A¦p¦ó²£¥Í§¹¾ã¡B°ª²[»\²vªº´ú¸Õ¸ê®Æ¤]±N¬O¥»¬ã¨s¥²¶·±Á{ªºÃøÃD¡C§Ú̹w´Á§ï¶i¥Ø«e¤wµo®iªºsensor network ®Ö¤ßµ{¦¡¡A¨ã¦³¦Û°Ê¦^´_¹B§@ªº®e¿ù¾÷¨î¡A¦P®É«Ø¥ß§¹¾ãªº´c¦HÀô¹Ò¼ÒÀÀ´ú¸Õ¸ê®Æ²£¥Í¨t²Î¡C ÃöÁäµü¡G´O¤J¦¡®Ö¤ß¡B±´´ú¾¹ºô¸ô¡B¿ù»~ª`¤J´ú¸Õ¡B¦^´_¾É¦Vpºâ¡B¥²µM¥¢±±¼Ò²Õ¡C ¡@¡@The
deployment of sensor network often encountered unexpected situations, such as
high temperature, high humidity, vibration, insufficient power supply, and ¡@¡@We
expected to use recovery-oriented computing approach to attain robustness
requirement under the assumption of no redundant components. It is also an
important design decision to emulate the malicious environment. How to
generate complete and high coverage benchmark data will be the major obstacle
of our research. We expect to improve our current sensor network kernel, with
automatic recovery capability, and build a benchmark generator for the
environment. Keywords: Embedded Kernel, Sensor Network,
Fault Injection, Recovery-Oriented Computing, Game Semantics, Crash-only
Modules, Dependability, Micro-reboot 3. ¶}©ñ¬[ºcªº¿Ã¹õ¦ê¬y¨t²Î OpenScreen: An Open Architecture for Streaming Contents for E-learning Environment
and Network (or OASEC: An Open Architecture for Streaming E-learning
Contents) ¡@¡@§Ú̱Nµo®i¤@®M¶}©ñ·½½Xªº¿Ã¹õ¦ê¬y¨t²Î(Screen
Streaming System)¡C¾ã¦X´Xӿùõ¦ê¬y´XÓ¥Dn§Þ³N¡G¿Ã¹õµe±Â^¨ú¡CÂ^¨ú¸ê®ÆÀ£ÁY¡C¶Ç°eµe±»PÅã¥Ü(rendering)¡C¤ä´© MS-window »P X-window Åã¥Ü¡C»P¦hºØ´CÅé¸ê®Æ¦P¨B¡A¥]¬Aµø°T»P»yµ¡C¤ä´©«á»s§@¡B¨Ã¯à¦Û°Ê¤Æ¡C¡]»s§@¥H²³ø¼ÐÃD¤§¼vµÀ˯Á¥Ø¿ý¡^¡C ¤ä´© SMIL¡C¤ä´©§ó¦h´CÅé¸ê®Æ¡A¦p lecturer
gesture data¡Bfacial expression¡Blaser pointer tracking¡Binstant message¡C¸Ñ¨M¨ä¦P¨B»P«Å|Åã¥Ü°ÝÃD(°ÊºA overlay)¡C±N±Ä¥ÎApplication
Sharing ¬ÛÃö¨ó©wÀ³¥Î¡B»PApplication Streaming ªºªx¥Î©ÊÀ³¥Î¤èªk¡C¥Ø«e¦b e-learning ¤è±§Þ³N¤w¸g¬Û·í¦¨¼ô¡A¹B¥Îªº¤èªk¥i¤À¬°´XÃþ¡Gscreen
capture, application preprocessing, »Papplication
sharing (multi-point)¡C¥Dn»Ý¨D¦p¤U¡G
4.³nÅ骩¥»¾ú¥v¸ê®Æµo±¸¥HÅçÃÒ¶}©ñ·½½X¥~³ò°Ñ»PªÌªº¾Ç²ß¹Lµ{ Mining Version
Histories for Verifying Learning Process of Legitimate Peripheral
Participants ¡@¡@Since
code revisions will reflect the extent of human involvement in the
development process, revision histories reveal and annotate the interaction
and interface between developers and modules. ¡@¡@We
therefore try to divide developers and modules into groups according to
revision histories from the open source software repository, such as
sourceforge.net. To describe the interactions between open source development
process, Legitimate Peripheral Participation (LPP)
is a representative model for partitioning developers into groups such as
core term and peripheral by the evolution process of learning behavior. With
the conventional module relationship, we divide modules into kernel and
non-kernel (such as UI). Groups of developers and modules have been formerly
partitioned in natural sense with informal criteria. In our work, we propose
a developer-module link relation model to analyze these grouping structures
between developers and modules. Our results discover some process cases with
relative importance in the constructed graph related to project development.
It reveals a certain subtle relationships of interactions between core and
non-core team developers, and interfaces between kernel and non-kernel
modules. Keywords:
Open Boundary, Open Source Software
Development Process, Legitimate peripheral participants(LPP). |