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

Smruthi Gadenkanahalli

dblp:246/5347 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
—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
Empirical software engineering · 67% Requirements engineering and software design · 33%
Network and information security
1 paper
Systems and software security · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Systems and software security
vulnerability discovery
0.412019
Achilles' heel of plug-and-Play software architectures: a grounded theory based approach · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2019
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories
0.412019
Achilles' heel of plug-and-Play software architectures: a grounded theory based approach · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2019
Requirements engineering and software design
software architecture
0.412019
Achilles' heel of plug-and-Play software architectures: a grounded theory based approach · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2019
Empirical software engineering › mining software repositories
vulnerability analysis
0.412019
Achilles' heel of plug-and-Play software architectures: a grounded theory based approach · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2019

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

systematic literature survey · 0.8practitioner interviews · 0.8grounded theory · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2019 Achilles' heel of plug-and-Play software architectures: a grounded theory based approach
abstract
Through a set of well-defined interfaces, plug-and-play architectures enable additional functionalities to be added or removed from a system at its runtime. However, plug-ins can also increase the application’s attack surface or introduce untrusted behavior into the system. In this paper, we (1) use a grounded theory-based approach to conduct an empirical study of common vulnerabilities in plug-and-play architectures; (2) conduct a systematic literature survey and evaluate the extent that the results of the empirical study are novel or supported by the literature; (3) evaluate the practicality of the findings by interviewing practitioners with several years of experience in plug-and-play systems. By analyzing Chromium, Thunderbird, Firefox, Pidgin, WordPress, Apache OfBiz, and OpenMRS, we found a total of 303 vulnerabilities rooted in extensibility design decisions and observed that these plugin-related vulnerabilities were caused by 16 different types of vulnerabilities. Out of these 16 vulnerability types we identified 19 mitigation procedures for fixing them. The literature review supported 12 vulnerability types and 8 mitigation techniques discovered in our empirical study, and indicated that 5 mitigation techniques were not covered in our empirical study. Furthermore, it indicated that 4 vulnerability types and 11 mitigation techniques discovered in our empirical study were not covered in the literature. The interviews with practitioners confirmed the relevance of the findings and highlighted ways that the results of this empirical study can have an impact in practice.
Joanna C. S. Santos, Adriana Sejfia, Taylor Corrello, Smruthi Gadenkanahalli, Mehdi Mirakhorli
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE4