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

Lukas Weichselbaum

dblp:187/8989 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2016
—ORCID · none

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

Security and privacy · 1 · 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
Web and mobile security · 67% Systems and software security · 33%
Computer networks
1 paper
Network measurement and analytics · 100%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Web and mobile security › browser security
content security policy
0.212016
CSP Is Dead, Long Live CSP! On the Insecurity of Whitelists and the Future of Content Security Policy · CCS 2016
Systems and software security › exploitation › injection attacks › code injection attack
cross-site scripting prevention
0.212016
CSP Is Dead, Long Live CSP! On the Insecurity of Whitelists and the Future of Content Security Policy · CCS 2016
Web and mobile security
web security
0.212016
CSP Is Dead, Long Live CSP! On the Insecurity of Whitelists and the Future of Content Security Policy · CCS 2016
Network measurement and analytics › internet measurement
internet-wide measurement
0.112016
CSP Is Dead, Long Live CSP! On the Insecurity of Whitelists and the Future of Content Security Policy · CCS 2016

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

internet-wide measurement · 0.5corpus analysis · 0.5
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2016 CSP Is Dead, Long Live CSP! On the Insecurity of Whitelists and the Future of Content Security Policy
abstract
Content Security Policy is a web platform mechanism designed to mitigate cross-site scripting (XSS), the top security vulnerability in modern web applications. In this paper, we take a closer look at the practical benefits of adopting CSP and identify significant flaws in real-world deployments that result in bypasses in 94.72% of all distinct policies. We base our Internet-wide analysis on a search engine corpus of approximately 100 billion pages from over 1 billion hostnames; the result covers CSP deployments on 1,680,867 hosts with 26,011 unique CSP policies -- the most comprehensive study to date. We introduce the security-relevant aspects of the CSP specification and provide an in-depth analysis of its threat model, focusing on XSS protections. We identify three common classes of CSP bypasses and explain how they subvert the security of a policy. We then turn to a quantitative analysis of policies deployed on the Internet in order to understand their security benefits. We observe that 14 out of the 15 domains most commonly whitelisted for loading scripts contain unsafe endpoints; as a consequence, 75.81% of distinct policies use script whitelists that allow attackers to bypass CSP. In total, we find that 94.68% of policies that attempt to limit script execution are ineffective, and that 99.34% of hosts with CSP use policies that offer no benefit against XSS. Finally, we propose the "strict-dynamic" keyword, an addition to the specification that facilitates the creation of policies based on cryptographic nonces, without relying on domain whitelists. We discuss our experience deploying such a nonce-based policy in a complex application and provide guidance to web authors for improving their policies.
Lukas Weichselbaum, Michele Spagnuolo, Sebastian Lekies, Artur Janc
CCS1