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

Paul Muntean 0001

dblp:161/9270 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
8ranked-venue papers
7as first author
2since 2021 · last 2021
0000-0002-2462-7612ORCID · verified

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

Security and privacy · 7 · 6 first-author · 1 since 2021Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 first-author · 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 analysis · 67% Debugging and program repair · 33%
Network and information security
2 papers
Systems and software security · 100%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Debugging and program repair
automated program repair
0.512021
IntRepair: Informed Repairing of Integer Overflows · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2021
Program analysis
static analysis
0.512021
IntRepair: Informed Repairing of Integer Overflows · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2021
Program analysis
symbolic execution
0.512021
IntRepair: Informed Repairing of Integer Overflows · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2021
Systems and software security › software vulnerability
cryptographic API misuse
0.412019
Stack Overflow Considered Helpful! Deep Learning Security Nudges Towards Stronger Cryptography · USENIX Security Symposium 2019
Systems and software security
software vulnerability
0.112021
IntRepair: Informed Repairing of Integer Overflows · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2021

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

static symbolic execution · 1.0repair validation · 1.0static analysis · 0.4deep learning · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2021 iTOP: Automating Counterfeit Object-Oriented Programming Attacks
abstract
Exploiting a program requires a security analyst to manipulate data in program memory with the goal to obtain control over the program counter and to escalate privileges. However, this is a tedious and lengthy process as: (1) the analyst has to massage program data such that a logical reliable data passing chain can be established, and (2) depending on the attacker goal certain in-place fine-grained protection mechanisms need to be bypassed. Previous work has proposed various techniques to facilitate exploit development. Unfortunately, none of them can be easily used to address the given challenges. This is due to the fact that data in memory is difficult to be massaged by an analyst who does not know the peculiarities of the program as the attack specification is most of the time only textually available, and not automated at all.
Paul Muntean 0001, Richard Viehoever, Zhiqiang Lin 0001, Gang Tan, Jens Grossklags, Claudia Eckert 0001
RAID1
2021 IntRepair: Informed Repairing of Integer Overflows
abstract
Integer overflows have threatened software applications for decades. Thus, in this paper, we propose a novel technique to provide automatic repairs of integer overflows inCsource code. Our technique, based on static symbolic execution, fusesdetection,repair generationandvalidation. This technique is implemented in a prototype namedIntRepair. We appliedIntRepairto 2,052Cprograms (approx. 1 million lines of code) contained in SAMATE's Juliet test suite and 50 synthesized programs that range up to 20 KLOC. Our experimental results show thatIntRepairis able to effectively detect integer overflows and successfully repair them, while only increasing the source code (LOC) and binary (Kb) size by around 1 percent, respectively. Further, we present the results of a user study with 30 participants which shows thatIntRepairrepairs are more than 10x efficient as compared to manually generated code repairs.
Paul Muntean 0001, Martin Monperrus, Jens Grossklags, Claudia Eckert 0001
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.1
2020 ρFEM: Efficient Backward-edge Protection Using Reversed Forward-edge Mappings
abstract
In this paper, we propose reversed forward-edge mapper (ρFEM), a Clang/LLVM compiler-based tool, to protect the backward edges of a program’s control flow graph (CFG) against runtime control-flow hijacking (e.g., code reuse attacks). It protects backward-edge transfers in C/C++ originating from virtual and non-virtual functions by first statically constructing a precise virtual table hierarchy, with which to form a precise forward-edge mapping between callees and non-virtual calltargets based on precise function signatures, and then checks each instrumented callee return against the previously computed set at runtime. We have evaluated ρFEM using the Chrome browser, NodeJS, Nginx, Memcached, and the SPEC CPU2017 benchmark. Our results show that ρFEM enforces less than 2.77 return targets per callee in geomean, even for applications heavily relying on backward edges. ρFEM’s runtime overhead is less than 1% in geomean for the SPEC CPU2017 benchmark and 3.44% in geomean for the Chrome browser.
Paul Muntean 0001, Matthias Neumayer, Zhiqiang Lin 0001, Gang Tan, Jens Grossklags, Claudia Eckert 0001
ACSAC1
2019 Analyzing control flow integrity with LLVM-CFI
abstract
Control-flow hijacking attacks are used to perform malicious computations. Current solutions for assessing the attack surface after a control flow integrity (CFI) policy was applied can measure only indirect transfer averages in the best case without providing any insights w.r.t. the absolute calltarget reduction per callsite, and gadget availability. Further, tool comparison is underdeveloped or not possible at all. CFI has proven to be one of the most promising protections against control flow hijacking attacks, thus many efforts have been made to improve CFI in various ways. However, there is a lack of systematic assessment of existing CFI protections.
Paul Muntean 0001, Matthias Neumayer, Zhiqiang Lin 0001, Gang Tan, Jens Grossklags, Claudia Eckert 0001
ACSAC1
2019 Stack Overflow Considered Helpful! Deep Learning Security Nudges Towards Stronger Cryptography
Felix Fischer 0001, Huang Xiao, Ching-Yu Kao, Yannick Stachelscheid, Benjamin Johnson 0001, Danial Razar, Paul Fawkesley, Nat Buckley, Konstantin Böttinger, Paul Muntean 0001, Jens Grossklags
USENIX Security Symposium10
2018 CastSan: Efficient Detection of Polymorphic C++ Object Type Confusions with LLVM
Paul Muntean 0001, Sebastian Würl, Jens Grossklags, Claudia Eckert 0001
ESORICS (1)1
2018 τCFI: Type-Assisted Control Flow Integrity for x86-64 Binaries
Paul Muntean 0001, Gang Tan, Zhiqiang Lin 0001, Jens Grossklags, Claudia Eckert 0001
RAID1
2015 Automated Generation of Buffer Overflow Quick Fixes Using Symbolic Execution and SMT
Paul Muntean 0001, Vasantha Kommanapalli, Andreas Ibing, Claudia Eckert 0001
SAFECOMP1