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

John N. Towse

dblp:174/2807 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
0000-0003-1183-5508ORCID · verified

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2 · 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.

Network and information security
2 papers
Usable security · 62% Systems and software security · 31% Web and mobile security · 7%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers
Empirical software engineering · 100%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Empirical software engineering
developer studies
0.622022
Schrödinger's security: opening the box on app developers' security rationale · ICSE 2020
The Case for Adaptive Security Interventions · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2022
Usable security › security behavior
developer security behavior
0.612022
The Case for Adaptive Security Interventions · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2022
Systems and software security › secure software development
secure coding
0.612022
The Case for Adaptive Security Interventions · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2022
Usable security
security interventions
0.612022
The Case for Adaptive Security Interventions · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2022
Web and mobile security
mobile security
0.112020
Schrödinger's security: opening the box on app developers' security rationale · ICSE 2020

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

meta-analysis · 1.1cognitive psychology · 1.1qualitative interviews · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 The Case for Adaptive Security Interventions
abstract
Despite the availability of various methods and tools to facilitate secure coding, developers continue to write code that contains common vulnerabilities. It is important to understand why technological advances do not sufficiently facilitate developers in writing secure code. To widen our understanding of developers' behaviour, we considered the complexity of the security decision space of developers using theory from cognitive and social psychology. Our interdisciplinary study reported in this article (1) draws on the psychology literature to provide conceptual underpinnings for three categories of impediments to achieving security goals, (2) reports on an in-depth meta-analysis of existing software security literature that identified a catalogue of factors that influence developers' security decisions, and (3) characterises the landscape of existing security interventions that are available to the developer during coding and identifies gaps. Collectively, these show that different forms of impediments to achieving security goals arise from different contributing factors. Interventions will be more effective where they reflect psychological factors more sensitively and marry technical sophistication, psychological frameworks, and usability. Our analysis suggests “adaptive security interventions” as a solution that responds to the changing security needs of individual developers and a present a proof-of-concept tool to substantiate our suggestion.
Irum Rauf, Marian Petre, Thein Tun, Tamara Lopez, Paul Lunn, Dirk van der Linden, John N. Towse, Helen Sharp, Mark Levine, Awais Rashid, Bashar Nuseibeh
ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.7
2020 Schrödinger's security: opening the box on app developers' security rationale
abstract
Research has established the wide variety of security failures in mobile apps, their consequences, and how app developers introduce or exacerbate them. What is not well known is why developers do so---what is the rationale underpinning the decisions they make which eventually strengthen or weaken app security? This is all the more complicated in modern app development's increasingly diverse demographic: growing numbers of independent, solo, or small team developers who do not have the organizational structures and support that larger software development houses enjoy.
Dirk van der Linden, Pauline Anthonysamy, Bashar Nuseibeh, Thein Than Tun, Marian Petre, Mark Levine, John N. Towse, Awais Rashid
ICSE7