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

Shane Magrath

dblp:77/4289 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 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
Software testing · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software testing
fuzzing
0.512021
Seed selection for successful fuzzing · ISSTA 2021
Software testing › fuzzing › seed scheduling
seed selection
0.512021
Seed selection for successful fuzzing · ISSTA 2021

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

mutation-based fuzzing · 0.5greybox fuzzing · 0.5
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2021 Seed selection for successful fuzzing
abstract
Mutation-based greybox fuzzing---unquestionably the most widely-used fuzzing technique---relies on a set of non-crashing seed inputs (a corpus) to bootstrap the bug-finding process. When evaluating a fuzzer, common approaches for constructing this corpus include: (i) using an empty file; (ii) using a single seed representative of the target's input format; or (iii) collecting a large number of seeds (e.g., by crawling the Internet). Little thought is given to how this seed choice affects the fuzzing process, and there is no consensus on which approach is best (or even if a best approach exists).
Adrian Herrera, Hendra Gunadi, Shane Magrath, Michael Norrish, Mathias Payer, Antony L. Hosking
ISSTA3
2005 Autonomics in telecommunications service activation
abstract
The motivation for this paper is to extend the state of the art in distributed autonomics praxis as applied to telecommunications network management. We describe how the task assignment problem, common in telecommunications service activation workflow processes, can be effectively solved through the use of distributed autonomic auction agents. In doing so, we present our telecommunications service architecture that locates autonomic mechanisms. We describe a formal framework for the autonomic mechanism based on Holland's adaptation theory. We then present the results of an experimental simulation study that shows that the autonomic mechanism provides near optimal performance for the problem, whilst conferring significant advantages over other common implementations in terms of robustness, scalability and disaster recovery. We conclude that autonomic mechanisms confer significant advantages to TMN, but it does so by hiding complexity rather than simplifying the system operations as has sometimes been reported.
Shane Magrath, Frank Chiang, Shmuel Markovits, Robin Braun, Fernando Cuervo
ISADS1