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

Tobias Kirsch

dblp:297/5132 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
2since 2021 · last 2026
0009-0007-2430-6871ORCID · reported

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

Security and privacy · 2 · 1 first-author · 2 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.

Computer networks
2 papers
Routing and switching · 70% Network management and operations · 30%
Network and information security
1 paper
Network security · 100%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Network management and operations
configuration verification
1.222026
Demo: Stopping Production Testing: A Graphical RPKI Test-Suite · CCS 2025
The Fault in Our Drafts: Vulnerabilities in RPKI Specification and Software · SP 2026
Routing and switching
inter-domain routing
1.012026
The Fault in Our Drafts: Vulnerabilities in RPKI Specification and Software · SP 2026
Network security
routing security
1.012026
The Fault in Our Drafts: Vulnerabilities in RPKI Specification and Software · SP 2026
Routing and switching › inter-domain routing › BGP
BGP security
0.912025
Demo: Stopping Production Testing: A Graphical RPKI Test-Suite · CCS 2025
Routing and switching › inter-domain routing › inter-domain routing security
RPKI
0.912025
Demo: Stopping Production Testing: A Graphical RPKI Test-Suite · CCS 2025

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

specification analysis · 2.0software vulnerability analysis · 2.0validator testing · 0.9DER/base64 object parsing · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 The Fault in Our Drafts: Vulnerabilities in RPKI Specification and Software
abstract
2815
Oliver Jacobsen, Tobias Kirsch, Haya Schulmann, Niklas Vogel, Michael Waidner
SP2
2025 Demo: Stopping Production Testing: A Graphical RPKI Test-Suite
abstract
The Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) is increasingly protecting global BGP routing and major players are pushing for wide-scale adoption. RPKI protection relies on correct publication and validity of RPKI objects: If a prefix has no valid covering RPKI object, e.g., because the object is invalid or expired, the prefix is not protected from hijacks. At the same time, ASes that issue RPKI objects lack any feedback whether their objects are considered valid by all RPKI validation software. This lack of feedback has repeatedly led to operational issues, and problems with object validity are persistent to this day. Oftentimes, issues with objects are only detected in production, after they have caused damage to routing. A prominent example of this is an issue with Amazon objects in 2023 that left 6000 of its prefixes open to hijack in any AS using a specific RPKI validator software implementation. In this work, we present a novel RPKI toolsuite that allows for comprehensive testing of RPKI objects, enabling operators to detect issues in their object configurations before production use. For this, our tool allows parsing arbitrary DER/base64 encoded objects, editing their content and structure, and live-testing them against all current RPKI validator implementations to probe for inconsistent validation results, errors, and even vulnerabilities. Our work provides an important foundation to ensure RPKI resilience against misconfigurations and facilitates future research into RPKI security. We make our tool open-source and provide a hosted web application to enable usage by the community.
Tobias Kirsch, Haya Schulmann, Niklas Vogel
CCS1