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.

Samarth Kishor

dblp:412/4836 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · none

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

Security and privacy · 1 · 1 since 2021

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.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Program verification · 67% Program analysis · 33%
Network and information security
1 paper
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation · 100%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program verification
modular verification
1.012026
The Secrets Must Not Flow: Scaling Security Verification to Large Codebases · SP 2026
Program verification › protocol verification
security protocol verification
1.012026
The Secrets Must Not Flow: Scaling Security Verification to Large Codebases · SP 2026
Program analysis
static analysis
1.012026
The Secrets Must Not Flow: Scaling Security Verification to Large Codebases · SP 2026
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation
key exchange
0.312026
The Secrets Must Not Flow: Scaling Security Verification to Large Codebases · SP 2026
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › key exchange
signed diffie-hellman
0.312026
The Secrets Must Not Flow: Scaling Security Verification to Large Codebases · SP 2026

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

separation logic · 2.0auto-active verification · 2.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 The Secrets Must Not Flow: Scaling Security Verification to Large Codebases
abstract
Existing program verifiers can prove advanced properties about security protocol implementations, but are difficult to scale to large codebases because of the manual effort required. We develop a novel methodology called *Diodon* that addresses this challenge by splitting the codebase into the protocol implementation (the *Core*) and the remainder (the *Application*). This split allows us to apply powerful semi-automated verification techniques to the security-critical Core, while fully-automatic static analyses scale the verification to the entire codebase by ensuring that the Application cannot invalidate the security properties proved for the Core. The static analyses achieve that by proving *I/O independence*, i.e., that the I/O operations within the Application are independent of the Core's security-relevant data (such as keys), and that the Application meets the Core's requirements. We have proved Diodon sound by first showing that we can safely allow the Application to perform I/O independent of the security protocol, and second that manual verification and static analyses soundly compose. We evaluate Diodon on two case studies: an implementation of the signed Diffie-Hellman key exchange and a large (100k+ LoC) production Go codebase implementing a key exchange protocol for which we obtained secrecy and injective agreement guarantees by verifying a Core of about 1% of the code with the auto-active program verifier Gobra in less than three person months.
Linard Arquint, Samarth Kishor, Jason R. Koenig, Joey Dodds, Daniel Kroening, Peter Müller 0001
SP2