Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Zach Smith
dblp:224/2399
· DBLP profile ↗
6ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2020
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Security and privacy · 6
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
3 papers |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation · 52% Authentication and access control · 34% Network security · 14% | |
| Computer networks
1 paper |
Internet architecture and protocols · 100% |
Topics — the 7 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Authentication and access control › proximity-based authentication
distance bounding protocols |
0.7 | 2 | 2019 | Post-Collusion Security and Distance Bounding · CCS 2019 Distance-Bounding Protocols: Verification without Time and Location · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2018 |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation
protocol verification |
0.7 | 2 | 2019 | Post-Collusion Security and Distance Bounding · CCS 2019 Distance-Bounding Protocols: Verification without Time and Location · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2018 |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › traitor tracing
collusion resistance |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Post-Collusion Security and Distance Bounding · CCS 2019 |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › security protocol analysis
symbolic verification |
0.3 | 1 | 2018 | Distance-Bounding Protocols: Verification without Time and Location · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2018 |
Internet architecture and protocols › network security
TLS |
0.1 | 1 | 2019 | maTLS: How to Make TLS middlebox-aware? · NDSS 2019 |
Authentication and access control
cryptographic authentication |
0.1 | 1 | 2019 | Post-Collusion Security and Distance Bounding · CCS 2019 |
Authentication and access control › proximity-based authentication
relay attack |
0.1 | 1 | 2018 | Distance-Bounding Protocols: Verification without Time and Location · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2018 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
protocol design · 0.8protocol verification · 0.4symbolic verification · 0.3causality-based characterization · 0.3
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | Extensive Security Verification of the LoRaWAN Key-Establishment: Insecurities & PatchesabstractLoRaWAN (Low-power Wide-Area Networks) is the main specification for application-level IoT (Internet of Things). The current version, published in October 2017, is LoRaWAN 1.1, with its 1.0 precursor still being the main specification supported by commercial devices such as PyCom LoRa transceivers. Prior (semi)-formal investigations into the security of the LoRaWAN protocols are scarce, especially for Lo-RaWAN 1.1. Moreover, amongst these few, the current encodings [4], [9] of LoRaWAN into verification tools unfortunately rely on much-simplified versions of the LoRaWAN protocols, undermining the relevance of the results in practice. In this paper, we fill in some of these gaps. Whilst we briefly discuss the most recent cryptographic-orientated works [5] that looked at LoRaWAN 1.1, our true focus is on producing formal analyses of the security and correctness of LoRaWAN, mechanised inside automated tools. To this end, we use the state-of-the-art prover, Tamarin. Importantly, our Tamarin models are a faithful and precise rendering of the LoRaWAN specifications. For example, we model the bespoke nonce-generation mechanisms newly introduced in LoRaWAN 1.1, as well as the “classical” but shortdomain nonces in LoRaWAN 1.0 and make recommendations regarding these. Whilst we include small parts on device-commissioning and application-level traffic, we primarily scrutinise the Join Procedure of LoRaWAN, and focus on version 1.1 of the specification, but also include an analysis of Lo-RaWAN 1.0. To this end, we consider three increasingly strong threat models, resting on a Dolev-Yao attacker acting modulo different requirements made on various channels (e.g., secure/insecure) and the level of trust placed on entities (e.g., honest/corruptible network servers). Importantly, one of these threat models is exactly in line with the LoRaWAN specification, yet it unfortunately still leads to attacks. In response to the exhibited attacks, we propose a minimal patch of the LoRaWAN 1.1 Join Procedure, which is as backwards-compatible as possible with the current version. We analyse and prove this patch secure in the strongest threat model mentioned above. This work has been responsibly disclosed to the LoRa Alliance, and we are liaising with the Security Working Group of the LoRa Alliance, in order to improve the clarity of the LoRaWAN 1.1 specifications in light of our findings, but also by using formal analysis as part of a feedback-loop of future and current specification writing. Stephan Wesemeyer, Ioana Boureanu, Zach Smith, Helen Treharne |
EuroS&P | 3 |
| 2019 | Post-Collusion Security and Distance BoundingabstractVerification of cryptographic protocols is traditionally built upon the assumption that participants have not revealed their long-term keys. However, in some cases, participants might collude to defeat some security goals, without revealing their long-term secrets. Sjouke Mauw, Zach Smith, Jorge Toro-Pozo, Rolando Trujillo-Rasua |
CCS | 2 |
| 2019 | Breaking Unlinkability of the ICAO 9303 Standard for e-Passports Using Bisimilarity
Ihor Filimonov, Ross Horne, Sjouke Mauw, Zach Smith |
ESORICS (1) | 4 |
| 2019 | maTLS: How to Make TLS middlebox-aware?
Hyunwoo Lee 0001, Zach Smith, Junghwan Lim, Gyeongjae Choi, Selin Chun, Taejoong Chung, Ted Taekyoung Kwon |
NDSS | 2 |
| 2018 | Automated Identification of Desynchronisation Attacks on Shared Secrets
Sjouke Mauw, Zach Smith, Jorge Toro-Pozo, Rolando Trujillo-Rasua |
ESORICS (1) | 2 |
| 2018 | Distance-Bounding Protocols: Verification without Time and LocationabstractDistance-bounding protocols are cryptographic protocols that securely establish an upper bound on the physical distance between the participants. Existing symbolic verification frameworks for distance-bounding protocols consider timestamps and the location of agents. In this work we introduce a causality-based characterization of secure distance-bounding that discards the notions of time and location. This allows us to verify the correctness of distance-bounding protocols with standard protocol verification tools. That is to say, we provide the first fully automated verification framework for distance-bounding protocols. By using our framework, we confirmed known vulnerabilities in a number of protocols and discovered unreported attacks against two recently published protocols. Sjouke Mauw, Zach Smith, Jorge Toro-Pozo, Rolando Trujillo-Rasua |
IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy | 2 |