Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Danny Cooper
dblp:143/8169
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2014
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Computer networks · 2 · 1 first-author
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 |
Network security · 77% Privacy and data protection · 23% | |
| Computer networks
1 paper |
Routing and switching · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Routing and switching
inter-domain routing |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | From the consent of the routed: improving the transparency of the RPKI · SIGCOMM 2014 |
Network security › routing security
RPKI |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | From the consent of the routed: improving the transparency of the RPKI · SIGCOMM 2014 |
Privacy and data protection › privacy compliance › consent › consent management
consent mechanisms |
0.1 | 1 | 2014 | From the consent of the routed: improving the transparency of the RPKI · SIGCOMM 2014 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
security analysis · 0.4data-driven analysis · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 | From the consent of the routed: improving the transparency of the RPKIabstractThe Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) is a new infrastructure that prevents some of the most devastating attacks on interdomain routing. However, the security benefits provided by the RPKI are accomplished via an architecture that empowers centralized authorities to unilaterally revoke any IP prefixes under their control. We propose mechanisms to improve the transparency of the RPKI, in order to mitigate the risk that it will be used for IP address takedowns. First, we present tools that detect and visualize changes to the RPKI that can potentially take down an IP prefix. We use our tools to identify errors and revocations in the production RPKI. Next, we propose modifications to the RPKI's architecture to (1) require any revocation of IP address space to receive consent from all impacted parties, and (2) detect when misbehaving authorities fail to obtain consent. We present a security analysis of our architecture, and estimate its overhead using data-driven analysis. Ethan Heilman, Danny Cooper, Leonid Reyzin, Sharon Goldberg |
SIGCOMM | 2 |
| 2013 | On the risk of misbehaving RPKI authoritiesabstractThe RPKI is a new security infrastructure that relies on trusted authorities to prevent some of the most devastating attacks on interdomain routing. The threat model for the RPKI supposes that authorities are trusted and routing is under attack. Here we discuss the risks that arise when this threat model is flipped: when RPKI authorities are faulty, misconfigured, compromised, or compelled to misbehave. We show how design decisions that elegantly address the vulnerabilities in the original threat model have unexpected side effects in this flipped threat model. In particular, we show new targeted attacks that allow RPKI authorities, under certain conditions, to limit access to IP prefixes, and discuss the risk that transient RPKI faults can take IP prefixes offline. Our results suggest promising directions for future research, and have implications on the design of security architectures that are appropriate for the untrusted and error-prone Internet. Danny Cooper, Ethan Heilman, Kyle Brogle, Leonid Reyzin, Sharon Goldberg |
HotNets | 1 |