Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Giorgi Maisuradze
dblp:185/1690
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
3as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Security and privacy · 4 · 3 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
4 papers |
Hardware security and side channels · 50% Systems and software security · 50% | |
| Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
2 papers |
Processor architecture and microarchitecture · 100% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Program analysis · 100% |
Topics — the 10 heaviest of 12, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Hardware security and side channels › microarchitectural attacks › transient execution attack
speculative execution attack |
0.7 | 2 | 2019 | RIDL: Rogue In-Flight Data Load · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2019 ret2spec: Speculative Execution Using Return Stack Buffers · CCS 2018 |
Hardware security and side channels › microarchitectural attacks
transient execution attack |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | RIDL: Rogue In-Flight Data Load · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2019 |
Processor architecture and microarchitecture
branch prediction |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | ret2spec: Speculative Execution Using Return Stack Buffers · CCS 2018 |
Processor architecture and microarchitecture › branch prediction
return address stack |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | ret2spec: Speculative Execution Using Return Stack Buffers · CCS 2018 |
Program analysis
binary analysis |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Dachshund: Digging for and Securing (Non-)Blinded Constants in JIT Code · NDSS 2017 |
Systems and software security › exploitation
code reuse attack |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | What Cannot Be Read, Cannot Be Leveraged? Revisiting Assumptions of JIT-ROP Defenses · USENIX Security Symposium 2016 |
Systems and software security
exploitation |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | What Cannot Be Read, Cannot Be Leveraged? Revisiting Assumptions of JIT-ROP Defenses · USENIX Security Symposium 2016 |
Systems and software security › exploitation › code reuse attack
JIT-ROP |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | What Cannot Be Read, Cannot Be Leveraged? Revisiting Assumptions of JIT-ROP Defenses · USENIX Security Symposium 2016 |
Processor architecture and microarchitecture
speculative execution |
0.1 | 1 | 2019 | RIDL: Rogue In-Flight Data Load · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2019 |
Systems and software security
memory safety |
0.1 | 1 | 2016 | What Cannot Be Read, Cannot Be Leveraged? Revisiting Assumptions of JIT-ROP Defenses · USENIX Security Symposium 2016 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
reverse engineering · 0.8exploit construction · 0.8side-channel leakage · 0.7misspeculation · 0.7dynamic analysis · 0.6JIT compilation analysis · 0.6
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | RIDL: Rogue In-Flight Data LoadabstractWe present Rogue In-flight Data Load (RIDL), a new class of speculative unprivileged and constrained attacks to leak arbitrary data across address spaces and privilege boundaries (e.g., process, kernel, SGX, and even CPU-internal operations). Our reverse engineering efforts show such vulnerabilities originate from a variety of micro-optimizations pervasive in commodity (Intel) processors, which cause the CPU to speculatively serve loads using extraneous CPU-internal in-flight data (e.g., in the line fill buffers). Contrary to other state-of-the-art speculative execution attacks, such as Spectre, Meltdown and Foreshadow, RIDL can leak this arbitrary in-flight data with no assumptions on the state of the caches or translation data structures controlled by privileged software. The implications are worrisome. First, RIDL attacks can be implemented even from linear execution with no invalid page faults, eliminating the need for exception suppression mechanisms and enabling system-wide attacks from arbitrary unprivileged code (including JavaScript in the browser). To exemplify such attacks, we build a number of practical exploits that leak sensitive information from victim processes, virtual machines, kernel, SGX and CPU-internal components. Second, and perhaps more importantly, RIDL bypasses all existing “spot” mitigations in software (e.g., KPTI, PTE inversion) and hardware (e.g., speculative store bypass disable) and cannot easily be mitigated even by more heavyweight defenses (e.g., L1D flushing or disabling SMT). RIDL questions the sustainability of a per-variant, spot mitigation strategy and suggests more fundamental mitigations are needed to contain ever-emerging speculative execution attacks. Stephan van Schaik, Alyssa Milburn, Sebastian Österlund, Pietro Frigo, Giorgi Maisuradze, Kaveh Razavi, Herbert Bos, Cristiano Giuffrida |
IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy | 5 |
| 2018 | ret2spec: Speculative Execution Using Return Stack BuffersabstractSpeculative execution is an optimization technique that has been part of CPUs for over a decade. It predicts the outcome and target of branch instructions to avoid stalling the execution pipeline. However, until recently, the security implications of speculative code execution have not been studied. In this paper, we investigate a special type of branch predictor that is responsible for predicting return addresses. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to study return address predictors and their consequences for the security of modern software. In our work, we show how return stack buffers (RSBs), the core unit of return address predictors, can be used to trigger misspeculations. Based on this knowledge, we propose two new attack variants using RSBs that give attackers similar capabilities as the documented Spectre attacks. We show how local attackers can gain arbitrary speculative code execution across processes, e.g., to leak passwords another user enters on a shared system. Our evaluation showed that the recent Spectre countermeasures deployed in operating systems can also cover such RSB-based cross-process attacks. Yet we then demonstrate that attackers can trigger misspeculation in JIT environments in order to leak arbitrary memory content of browser processes. Reading outside the sandboxed memory region with JIT-compiled code is still possible with 80% accuracy on average. Giorgi Maisuradze, Christian Rossow |
CCS | 1 |
| 2017 | Dachshund: Digging for and Securing (Non-)Blinded Constants in JIT Code
Giorgi Maisuradze, Michael Backes 0001, Christian Rossow |
NDSS | 1 |
| 2016 | What Cannot Be Read, Cannot Be Leveraged? Revisiting Assumptions of JIT-ROP Defenses
Giorgi Maisuradze, Michael Backes 0001, Christian Rossow |
USENIX Security Symposium | 1 |