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.

Evan Driscoll

dblp:05/8296 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2015
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 4 · 2 first-authorTheory of computation · 2 · 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.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
4 papers
Program analysis · 47% Program verification · 38% Software testing · 15%
Network and information security
1 paper
Systems and software security · 100%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Automata and formal languages · 100%

Topics — the 10 heaviest of 11, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Systems and software security › memory safety › memory error detection
buffer overflow detection
0.212015
Data-Delineation in Software Binaries and its Application to Buffer-Overrun Discovery · ICSE (1) 2015
Systems and software security
memory safety
0.212015
Data-Delineation in Software Binaries and its Application to Buffer-Overrun Discovery · ICSE (1) 2015
Program analysis
static analysis
0.212015
Data-Delineation in Software Binaries and its Application to Buffer-Overrun Discovery · ICSE (1) 2015
Program analysis
dynamic analysis
0.112012
OpenNWA: A Nested-Word Automaton Library · CAV 2012
Program verification › dynamic verification
runtime verification
0.112012
OpenNWA: A Nested-Word Automaton Library · CAV 2012
Automata and formal languages › pushdown automata
nested word automata
0.112012
OpenNWA: A Nested-Word Automaton Library · CAV 2012
Software testing › protocol testing
conformance checking
0.112011
Checking conformance of a producer and a consumer · SIGSOFT FSE 2011
Program verification › code-level verification
machine code verification
0.112010
Directed Proof Generation for Machine Code · CAV 2010
Program verification
automated verification
0.012010
Directed Proof Generation for Machine Code · CAV 2010
Program verification
proof generation
0.012010
Directed Proof Generation for Machine Code · CAV 2010

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

heuristic static analysis · 0.4DWARF debugging information · 0.4nested-word automata · 0.1nested word automata · 0.1protocol analysis · 0.1counterexample generation · 0.1directed proof generation · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2015 Data-Delineation in Software Binaries and its Application to Buffer-Overrun Discovery
abstract
Detecting memory-safety violations in binaries is complicated by the lack of knowledge of the intended data layout, i.e., the locations and sizes of objects. We present lightweight, static, heuristic analyses for recovering the intended layout of data in a stripped binary. Comparison against DWARF debugging information shows high precision and recall rates for inferring source-level object boundaries. On a collection of benchmarks, our analysis eliminates a third to a half of incorrect object boundaries identified by an IDA Pro-inspired heuristic, while retaining nearly all valid object boundaries. In addition to measuring their accuracy directly, we evaluate the effect of using the recovered data for improving the precision of static buffer-overrun detection in the defect-detection tool CodeSonar/x86. We demonstrate that CodeSonar's false-positive rate drops by about 80% across our internal evaluation suite for the tool, while our approximation of CodeSonar's recall only degrades about 25%.
Denis Gopan, Evan Driscoll, Ducson Nguyen, Dimitri Naydich, Alexey Loginov, David Melski
ICSE (1)2
2012 OpenNWA: A Nested-Word Automaton Library
Evan Driscoll, Aditya V. Thakur, Thomas W. Reps
CAV1
2011 Checking conformance of a producer and a consumer
abstract
This paper addresses the problem of identifying incompatibilities between two programs that operate in a producer/consumer relationship. It describes the techniques that are incorporated in a tool called PCCA (Producer-Consumer Conformance Analyzer), which attempts to (i) determine whether the consumer is prepared to accept all messages that the producer can emit, or (ii) find a counter-example: a message that the producer can emit and the consumer considers ill-formed.
Evan Driscoll, Amanda Burton, Thomas W. Reps
SIGSOFT FSE1
2010 Directed Proof Generation for Machine Code
Aditya V. Thakur, Junghee Lim, Akash Lal, Amanda Burton, Evan Driscoll, Matt Elder, Tycho Andersen, Thomas W. Reps
CAV5