Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Ankit Malik
dblp:119/0048
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2012
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Security and privacy · 1
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Network and information security
1 paper |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation · 100% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › protocol verification
computational soundness |
0.1 | 1 | 2012 | Computational soundness without protocol restrictions · CCS 2012 |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › security protocol analysis
dolev-yao model |
0.1 | 1 | 2012 | Computational soundness without protocol restrictions · CCS 2012 |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation
protocol verification |
0.1 | 1 | 2012 | Computational soundness without protocol restrictions · CCS 2012 |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › security protocol analysis
symbolic model |
0.1 | 1 | 2012 | Computational soundness without protocol restrictions · CCS 2012 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
term algebra · 0.1dolev-yao model · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | Computational soundness without protocol restrictionsabstractThe abstraction of cryptographic operations by term algebras, called Dolev-Yao models, is essential in almost all tool-supported methods for verifying security protocols. Recently significant progress was made in establishing computational soundness results: these results prove that Dolev-Yao style models can be sound with respect to actual cryptographic realizations and security definitions. However, these results came at the cost of imposing various constraints on the set of permitted security protocols: e.g., dishonestly generated keys must not be used, key cycles need to be avoided, and many more. In a nutshell, the cryptographic security definitions did not adequately capture these cases, but were considered carved in stone; in contrast, the symbolic abstractions were bent to reflect cryptographic features and idiosyncrasies, thereby requiring adaptations of existing verification tools. Michael Backes 0001, Ankit Malik, Dominique Unruh |
CCS | 2 |