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

Peter Torr

dblp:27/6288 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2007
—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 · 50% Requirements engineering and software design · 50%
Network and information security
1 paper
Systems and software security · 100%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Systems and software security › security engineering
threat modeling
0.112007
Checking threat modeling data flow diagrams for implementation conformance and security · ASE 2007
Requirements engineering and software design › software architecture
architecture conformance checking
0.112007
Checking threat modeling data flow diagrams for implementation conformance and security · ASE 2007
Program analysis
static analysis
0.112007
Checking threat modeling data flow diagrams for implementation conformance and security · ASE 2007

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

static analysis · 0.1reflexion models · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2007 Checking threat modeling data flow diagrams for implementation conformance and security
abstract
Threat modeling is a lightweight approach to reason about application security and uses Data Flow Diagrams (DFDs) with security annotations. We extended Reflexion Models to check the conformance of an as-designed DFD with an approximation of the as-built DFD obtained from the implementation. We also designed a set of properties and an analysis to help novice designers think about security threats such as spoofing, tampering and information disclosure.
Marwan Abi-Antoun, Peter Torr
ASE3