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

Guglielmo Fachini

dblp:204/9454 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2018
—ORCID · none

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

Security and privacy · 1Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 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
Systems and software security · 100%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Programming languages and type systems · 100%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Systems and software security › language-based security
secure compilation
0.312018
When Good Components Go Bad: Formally Secure Compilation Despite Dynamic Compromise · CCS 2018
Programming languages and type systems
language semantics
0.312018
When Good Components Go Bad: Formally Secure Compilation Despite Dynamic Compromise · CCS 2018
Systems and software security › isolation
compartmentalization
0.112018
When Good Components Go Bad: Formally Secure Compilation Despite Dynamic Compromise · CCS 2018
Systems and software security › isolation
software fault isolation
0.112018
When Good Components Go Bad: Formally Secure Compilation Despite Dynamic Compromise · CCS 2018

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

tag-based reference monitor · 0.7coq proofs · 0.3coq proof · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2018 When Good Components Go Bad: Formally Secure Compilation Despite Dynamic Compromise
abstract
We propose a new formal criterion for evaluating secure compilation schemes for unsafe languages, expressing end-to-end security guarantees for software components that may become compromised after encountering undefined behavior---for example, by accessing an array out of bounds. Our criterion is the first to model dynamic compromise in a system of mutually distrustful components with clearly specified privileges. It articulates how each component should be protected from all the others---in particular, from components that have encountered undefined behavior and become compromised. Each component receives secure compilation guarantees---in particular, its internal invariants are protected from compromised components---up to the point when this component itself becomes compromised, after which we assume an attacker can take complete control and use this component's privileges to attack other components. More precisely, a secure compilation chain must ensure that a dynamically compromised component cannot break the safety properties of the system at the target level any more than an arbitrary attacker-controlled component (with the same interface and privileges, but without undefined behaviors) already could at the source level. To illustrate the model, we construct a secure compilation chain for a small unsafe language with buffers, procedures, and components, targeting a simple abstract machine with built-in compartmentalization. We give a careful proof (mostly machine-checked in Coq) that this compiler satisfies our secure compilation criterion. Finally, we show that the protection guarantees offered by the compartmentalized abstract machine can be achieved at the machine-code level using either software fault isolation or a tag-based reference monitor.
Carmine Abate, Arthur Azevedo de Amorim, Roberto Blanco, Ana Nora Evans, Guglielmo Fachini, Catalin Hritcu, Théo Laurent, Benjamin C. Pierce, Marco Stronati, Andrew P. Tolmach
CCS5
2017 Validating the Meta-Theory of Programming Languages (Short Paper)
Guglielmo Fachini, Alberto Momigliano
SEFM1