EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Paul Lunn
dblp:313/3463
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 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
1 paper |
Usable security · 67% Systems and software security · 33% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Empirical software engineering · 100% |
Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Usable security › security behavior
developer security behavior |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | The Case for Adaptive Security Interventions · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2022 |
Systems and software security › secure software development
secure coding |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | The Case for Adaptive Security Interventions · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2022 |
Usable security
security interventions |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | The Case for Adaptive Security Interventions · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2022 |
Empirical software engineering
developer studies |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | The Case for Adaptive Security Interventions · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2022 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
meta-analysis · 1.1cognitive psychology · 1.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | The Case for Adaptive Security InterventionsabstractDespite the availability of various methods and tools to facilitate secure coding, developers continue to write code that contains common vulnerabilities. It is important to understand why technological advances do not sufficiently facilitate developers in writing secure code. To widen our understanding of developers' behaviour, we considered the complexity of the security decision space of developers using theory from cognitive and social psychology. Our interdisciplinary study reported in this article (1) draws on the psychology literature to provide conceptual underpinnings for three categories of impediments to achieving security goals, (2) reports on an in-depth meta-analysis of existing software security literature that identified a catalogue of factors that influence developers' security decisions, and (3) characterises the landscape of existing security interventions that are available to the developer during coding and identifies gaps. Collectively, these show that different forms of impediments to achieving security goals arise from different contributing factors. Interventions will be more effective where they reflect psychological factors more sensitively and marry technical sophistication, psychological frameworks, and usability. Our analysis suggests “adaptive security interventions” as a solution that responds to the changing security needs of individual developers and a present a proof-of-concept tool to substantiate our suggestion. Irum Rauf, Marian Petre, Thein Tun, Tamara Lopez, Paul Lunn, Dirk van der Linden, John N. Towse, Helen Sharp, Mark Levine, Awais Rashid, Bashar Nuseibeh |
ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. | 5 |