Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Matthew Brassil

dblp:121/0014 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2013
0000-0002-6511-2228ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Security and privacy · 1Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1Theory of computation · 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
Systems and software security · 100%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Program verification · 77% Operating systems · 23%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Systems and software security › information flow control
information flow enforcement
0.212013
seL4: From General Purpose to a Proof of Information Flow Enforcement · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2013
Systems and software security
operating system security
0.212013
seL4: From General Purpose to a Proof of Information Flow Enforcement · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2013
Program verification
mechanized verification
0.212013
seL4: From General Purpose to a Proof of Information Flow Enforcement · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2013
Operating systems › kernel › kernel design
microkernel
0.012013
seL4: From General Purpose to a Proof of Information Flow Enforcement · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2013

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

intransitive noninterference proof · 0.3formal verification · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2013 seL4: From General Purpose to a Proof of Information Flow Enforcement
abstract
In contrast to testing, mathematical reasoning and formal verification can show the absence of whole classes of security vulnerabilities. We present the, to our knowledge, first complete, formal, machine-checked verification of information flow security for the implementation of a general-purpose microkernel; namely seL4. Unlike previous proofs of information flow security for operating system kernels, ours applies to the actual 8, 830 lines of C code that implement seL4, and so rules out the possibility of invalidation by implementation errors in this code. We assume correctness of compiler, assembly code, hardware, and boot code. We prove everything else. This proof is strong evidence of seL4's utility as a separation kernel, and describes precisely how the general purpose kernel should be configured to enforce isolation and mandatory information flow control. We describe the information flow security statement we proved (a variant of intransitive noninterference), including the assumptions on which it rests, as well as the modifications that had to be made to seL4 to ensure it was enforced. We discuss the practical limitations and implications of this result, including covert channels not covered by the formal proof.
Toby C. Murray, Daniel Matichuk, Matthew Brassil, Peter Gammie, Timothy Bourke, Sean Seefried, Corey Lewis, Gerwin Klein
IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy3
2012 Noninterference for Operating System Kernels
Toby C. Murray, Daniel Matichuk, Matthew Brassil, Peter Gammie, Gerwin Klein
CPP3