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

Eslam Elnikety

dblp:13/10811 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
6ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
—ORCID · none

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

Security and privacy · 3 · 1 first-authorSystems, architecture and hardware · 1Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 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
5 papers
Systems and software security · 58% Privacy and data protection · 24% Hardware security and side channels · 17%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Operating systems · 100%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Storage systems · 100%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
2 papers
Database system architecture and tuning · 100%

Topics — the 8 heaviest of 10, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Privacy and data protection
policy compliance
0.522017
Qapla: Policy compliance for database-backed systems · USENIX Security Symposium 2017
Thoth: Comprehensive Policy Compliance in Data Retrieval Systems · USENIX Security Symposium 2016
Hardware security and side channels › trusted execution environments
hardware isolation
0.412019
ERIM: Secure, Efficient In-process Isolation with Protection Keys (MPK) · USENIX Security Symposium 2019
Systems and software security › memory safety › memory isolation
in-process isolation
0.412019
ERIM: Secure, Efficient In-process Isolation with Protection Keys (MPK) · USENIX Security Symposium 2019
Systems and software security › memory safety
memory isolation
0.412019
ERIM: Secure, Efficient In-process Isolation with Protection Keys (MPK) · USENIX Security Symposium 2019
Systems and software security › memory protection
memory protection keys
0.412019
ERIM: Secure, Efficient In-process Isolation with Protection Keys (MPK) · USENIX Security Symposium 2019
Operating systems › operating system design
OS abstractions
0.212016
Light-Weight Contexts: An OS Abstraction for Safety and Performance · OSDI 2016
Storage systems
storage reliability
0.212015
Guardat: enforcing data policies at the storage layer · EuroSys 2015
Database system architecture and tuning
database security
0.112017
Qapla: Policy compliance for database-backed systems · USENIX Security Symposium 2017

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

policy enforcement · 0.6policy compliance · 0.5i/o mediation · 0.4cryptographic attestation · 0.4protection keys (MPK) · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2019 ERIM: Secure, Efficient In-process Isolation with Protection Keys (MPK)
Anjo Vahldiek-Oberwagner, Eslam Elnikety, Nuno O. Duarte, Michael Sammler, Peter Druschel, Deepak Garg 0001
USENIX Security Symposium2
2017 Qapla: Policy compliance for database-backed systems
Aastha Mehta, Eslam Elnikety, Katura Harvey, Deepak Garg 0001, Peter Druschel
USENIX Security Symposium2
2016 Light-Weight Contexts: An OS Abstraction for Safety and Performance
James Litton, Anjo Vahldiek-Oberwagner, Eslam Elnikety, Deepak Garg 0001, Bobby Bhattacharjee, Peter Druschel
OSDI3
2016 Thoth: Comprehensive Policy Compliance in Data Retrieval Systems
Eslam Elnikety, Aastha Mehta, Anjo Vahldiek-Oberwagner, Deepak Garg 0001, Peter Druschel
USENIX Security Symposium1
2015 Guardat: enforcing data policies at the storage layer
abstract
In today's data processing systems, both the policies protecting stored data and the mechanisms for their enforcement are spread over many software components and configuration files, increasing the risk of policy violation due to bugs, vulnerabilities and misconfigurations. Guardat addresses this problem. Users, developers and administrators specify file protection policies declaratively, concisely and separate from code, and Guardat enforces these policies by mediating I/O in the storage layer. Policy enforcement relies only on the integrity of the Guardat controller and any external policy dependencies. The semantic gap between the storage layer enforcement and per-file policies is bridged using cryptographic attestations from Guardat. We present the design and prototype implementation of Guardat, enforce example policies in a Web server, and show experimentally that its overhead is low.
Anjo Vahldiek-Oberwagner, Eslam Elnikety, Aastha Mehta, Deepak Garg 0001, Peter Druschel, Rodrigo Rodrigues 0001, Johannes Gehrke, Ansley Post
EuroSys2
2011 iHadoop: Asynchronous Iterations for MapReduce
abstract
MapReduce is a distributed programming framework designed to ease the development of scalable data-intensive applications for large clusters of commodity machines. Most machine learning and data mining applications involve iterative computations over large datasets, such as the Web hyperlink structures and social network graphs. Yet, the MapReduce model does not efficiently support this important class of applications. The architecture of MapReduce, most critically its dataflow techniques and task scheduling, is completely unaware of the nature of iterative applications, tasks are scheduled according to a policy that optimizes the execution for a single iteration which wastes bandwidth, I/O, and CPU cycles when compared with an optimal execution for a consecutive set of iterations. This work presents iHadoop, a modified MapReduce model, and an associated implementation, optimized for iterative computations. The iHadoop model schedules iterations asynchronously. It connects the output of one iteration to the next, allowing both to process their data concurrently. iHadoop's task scheduler exploits inter-iteration data locality by scheduling tasks that exhibit a producer/consumer relation on the same physical machine allowing a fast local data transfer. For those iterative applications that require satisfying certain criteria before termination, iHadoop runs the check concurrently during the execution of the subsequent iteration to further reduce the application's latency. This paper also describes our implementation of the iHadoop model, and evaluates its performance against Hadoop, the widely used open source implementation of MapReduce. Experiments using different data analysis applications over real-world and synthetic datasets show that iHadoop performs better than Hadoop for iterative algorithms, reducing execution time of iterative applications by 25% on average. Furthermore, integrating iHadoop with HaLoop, a variant Hadoop implementation that caches invariant data between iterations, reduces execution time by 38% on average.
Eslam Elnikety, Tamer Elsayed, Hany E. Ramadan
CloudCom1