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

Giorgi Maisuradze

dblp:185/1690 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Hardware security and side channels › microarchitectural attacks › transient execution attack
speculative execution attack
0.722019
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
0.412019
RIDL: Rogue In-Flight Data Load · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2019
Processor architecture and microarchitecture
branch prediction
0.312018
ret2spec: Speculative Execution Using Return Stack Buffers · CCS 2018
Processor architecture and microarchitecture › branch prediction
return address stack
0.312018
ret2spec: Speculative Execution Using Return Stack Buffers · CCS 2018
Program analysis
binary analysis
0.312017
Dachshund: Digging for and Securing (Non-)Blinded Constants in JIT Code · NDSS 2017
Systems and software security › exploitation
code reuse attack
0.212016
What Cannot Be Read, Cannot Be Leveraged? Revisiting Assumptions of JIT-ROP Defenses · USENIX Security Symposium 2016
Systems and software security
exploitation
0.212016
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
0.212016
What Cannot Be Read, Cannot Be Leveraged? Revisiting Assumptions of JIT-ROP Defenses · USENIX Security Symposium 2016
Processor architecture and microarchitecture
speculative execution
0.112019
RIDL: Rogue In-Flight Data Load · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2019
Systems and software security
memory safety
0.112016
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2019 RIDL: Rogue In-Flight Data Load
abstract
We 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 Privacy5
2018 ret2spec: Speculative Execution Using Return Stack Buffers
abstract
Speculative 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
CCS1
2017 Dachshund: Digging for and Securing (Non-)Blinded Constants in JIT Code
Giorgi Maisuradze, Michael Backes 0001, Christian Rossow
NDSS1
2016 What Cannot Be Read, Cannot Be Leveraged? Revisiting Assumptions of JIT-ROP Defenses
Giorgi Maisuradze, Michael Backes 0001, Christian Rossow
USENIX Security Symposium1