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

Jose L. Gallegos

dblp:116/6717 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2012
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1

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 analysis · 100%
Network and information security
1 paper
Systems and software security · 100%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program analysis
static analysis
0.112012
Verifying client-side input validation functions using string analysis · ICSE 2012
Program analysis › dynamic analysis
dynamic slicing
0.012012
Verifying client-side input validation functions using string analysis · ICSE 2012

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

regular expression policy specification · 0.3dynamic slicing · 0.3automata-based string analysis · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2012 Verifying client-side input validation functions using string analysis
abstract
Client-side computation in web applications is becoming increasingly common due to the popularity of powerful client-side programming languages such as JavaScript. Clientside computation is commonly used to improve an application's responsiveness by validating user inputs before they are sent to the server. In this paper, we present an analysis technique for checking if a client-side input validation function conforms to a given policy. In our approach, input validation policies are expressed using two regular expressions, one specifying the maximum policy (the upper bound for the set of inputs that should be allowed) and the other specifying the minimum policy (the lower bound for the set of inputs that should be allowed). Using our analysis we can identify two types of errors 1) the input validation function accepts an input that is not permitted by the maximum policy, or 2) the input validation function rejects an input that is permitted by the minimum policy. We implemented our analysis using dynamic slicing to automatically extract the input validation functions from web applications and using automata-based string analysis to analyze the extracted functions. Our experiments demonstrate that our approach is effective in finding errors in input validation functions that we collected from real-world applications and from tutorials and books for teaching JavaScript.
Muath Alkhalaf, Tevfik Bultan, Jose L. Gallegos
ICSE3