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

Samantha Katcher

dblp:305/2578 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
3since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0001-9179-7905ORCID · corroborated

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

Security and privacy · 2 · 2 since 2021Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 first-author · 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
Systems and software security · 74% Cryptographic protocols and secure computation · 15% Usable security · 11%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers
Program analysis · 57% Empirical software engineering · 43%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Systems and software security › vulnerability discovery
human factors in vulnerability discovery
0.712023
Vulnerability Discovery for All: Experiences of Marginalization in Vulnerability Discovery · SP 2023
Systems and software security
vulnerability discovery
0.712023
Vulnerability Discovery for All: Experiences of Marginalization in Vulnerability Discovery · SP 2023
Empirical software engineering
developer studies
0.712023
Vulnerability Discovery for All: Experiences of Marginalization in Vulnerability Discovery · SP 2023
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation
security protocol analysis
0.312025
An Investigation of Interaction and Information Needs for Protocol Reverse Engineering Automation · CHI 2025

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

semi-structured interviews · 1.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 An Investigation of Interaction and Information Needs for Protocol Reverse Engineering Automation
Samantha Katcher, James Mattei, Jared Chandler, Daniel Votipka
CHI1
2023 Vulnerability Discovery for All: Experiences of Marginalization in Vulnerability Discovery
abstract
Vulnerability discovery is an essential aspect of software security. Currently, the demand for security experts significantly exceeds the available vulnerability discovery workforce. Further, the existing vulnerability discovery workforce is highly homogeneous, dominated by white and Asian men. As such, one promising avenue for increasing the capacity of the vulnerability discovery community is through recruitment and retention from a broader population. Although significant prior research has explored the challenges of equity and inclusion in computing broadly, the competitive and frequently self-taught nature of vulnerability discovery work may create new variations on these challenges. This paper reports on a semi-structured interview study (N = 16) investigating how people from marginalized populations come to participate in vulnerability discovery, whether they feel welcomed by the vulnerability discovery community, and what challenges they face when joining the vulnerability discovery community. We find that members of marginalized populations face some unique challenges, while other challenges common in vulnerability discovery are exacerbated by marginalization.
Kelsey R. Fulton, Samantha Katcher, Kevin Song, Marshini Chetty, Michelle L. Mazurek, Chloé Messdaghi, Daniel Votipka
SP2
2022 A Qualitative Evaluation of Reverse Engineering Tool Usability
abstract
Software reverse engineering is a challenging and time consuming task. With the growing demand for reverse engineering in vulnerability discovery and malware analysis, manual reverse engineering cannot scale to meet the demand. There has been significant effort to develop automated tooling to support reverse engineers, but many reverse engineers report not using these tools. In this paper, we seek to understand whether this lack of use is an issue of usability. We performed a iterative open coding of 288 reverse engineering tools to identify common input and output methods, as well as whether the tools adhered to usability guidelines established in prior work. We found that most reverse engineering tools have limited interaction and usability support. However, usability issues vary between dynamic and static tools. Dynamic tools were less likely to provide easy-to-use interfaces, while static tools often did not allow reverse engineers to adjust the analysis. Based on our findings, we give recommendations for reverse engineering framework developers and suggest directions for future HCI research in reverse engineering.
James Mattei, Madeline McLaughlin, Samantha Katcher, Daniel Votipka
ACSAC3