Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Craig Miller
dblp:21/6346
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2023
—ORCID · conflict
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Systems, architecture and hardware · 1 · 1 first-authorSecurity and privacy · 1 · 1 since 2021Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 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.
| Network and information security
1 paper |
Cyber-physical and IoT security · 100% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Energy systems and smart grids · 100% |
Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Cyber-physical and IoT security › deception attacks
false data injection attack |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Shedding Light on Inconsistencies in Grid Cybersecurity: Disconnects and Recommendations · SP 2023 |
Cyber-physical and IoT security › smart grid security
power grid security |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Shedding Light on Inconsistencies in Grid Cybersecurity: Disconnects and Recommendations · SP 2023 |
High-performance computing
parallel i/o |
0.0 | 1 | 1995 | Parallel Processing of Spaceborne Imaging Radar Data · SC 1995 |
Parallel and multicore computing › parallel computing
parallel scientific computing |
0.0 | 1 | 1995 | Parallel Processing of Spaceborne Imaging Radar Data · SC 1995 |
Parallel and multicore computing › data distribution
data decomposition |
0.0 | 1 | 1995 | Parallel Processing of Spaceborne Imaging Radar Data · SC 1995 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
grid simulation · 1.3expert survey · 1.3node-level optimization · 0.0data decomposition · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Shedding Light on Inconsistencies in Grid Cybersecurity: Disconnects and RecommendationsabstractThe operational, academic, and policy communities disagree on which threats against the power grid are likely and what damage would ensue. For instance, the feasibility and impact of MadIoT-style attacks is being actively debated. By surveying grid experts (N=18) we find that disagreements are not unique to MadIoT attacks but occur across multiple well-studied grid threats. Based on prior work and our survey, we hypothesize that the disagreements stem from inconsistencies in how grid threats are modeled. We identify five likely causes of modeling inconsistencies: 1) using unrealistic grid topologies, 2) assuming unrealistic capabilities for attackers, 3) exploring too few grid scenarios, 4) using incomplete simulators that omit relevant grid processes, and 5) using simulators that incorrectly model key grid processes. To check these hypotheses, we create a modeling framework and examine how these factors change our understanding of the feasibility and impact of grid threats. We use four diverse grid threats as case studies: MadIoT, False Data Injection Attacks, Substation Circuit Breaker Takeover, and Power Plant Takeover. We find that each of our hypothe-sized causes of modeling inconsistencies has a significant effect on modeling the outcomes of attacks. For example, we find that MadIoT attacks are much less feasible and require significantly more high-wattage IoT devices on realistic topologies than on topologies previously used to model them. In contrast, we find that Substation Circuit Breaker Takeover attacks are much more feasible in emergency scenarios and may require significantly fewer substations for failure than previous modeling suggested. We conclude with actionable recommendations for accurately assessing the impact of threats against the grid. Brian Singer, Amritanshu Pandey, Shimiao Li, Lujo Bauer, Craig Miller, Lawrence T. Pileggi, Vyas Sekar |
SP | 5 |
| 2004 | Accessing and Visualizing Scientific Spatiotemporal Data
Daniel S. Katz, Attila Bergou, G. Bruce Berriman, Gary L. Block, Jim Collier, David W. Curkendall, John Good, Laura Husman, Joseph C. Jacob, Anastasia C. Laity, Peggy Li, Craig Miller, Tom Prince, Herb Siegel, Roy Williams |
SSDBM | 12 |
| 1995 | Parallel Processing of Spaceborne Imaging Radar DataabstractWe discuss the results of a collaborative project on parallel processing of Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) data, carried out between the NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and Intel Scalable Systems Division (SSD). Through this collaborative effort, we have successfully parallelized the most compute-intensive SAR correlator phase of the Spaceborne Shuttle Imaging Radar-C/X-Band SAR (SIR-C/X-SAR) code, for the Intel Paragon. We describe the data decomposition, the scalable high-performance I/O model, and the node-level optimizations which enable us to obtain efficient processing throughput. In particular, we point out an interesting double level of parallelization arising in the data decomposition which increases substantially our ability to support ''high volume'' SAR. Results are presented from this code running in parallel on the Intel Paragon. A representative set of SAR data, of size 800 Megabytes, which was collected by the SIR-C/X-SAR instrument aboard NASA's Space Shuttle in 15 seconds, is processed in 55 seconds on the Concurrent Supercomputing Consortium's Paragon XP/S 35+. This compares well with a time of 12 minutes for the current SIR-C/X-SAR processing system at JPL. For the first time, a commercial system can process SIR-C/X-SAR data at a rate which is approaching the rate at which the SIR-C/X-SAR instrument can collect the data. This work has successfully demonstrated the viability of the Intel Paragon supercomputer for processing ''high volume" Synthetic Aperture Radar data in near real-time. Craig Miller, David G. Payne, Thanh N. Phung, Herb Siegel, Roy Williams |
SC | 1 |