Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Sultan Fahad Almassari
dblp:322/8532
· 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 |
Systems and software security · 100% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Empirical software engineering · 100% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Systems and software security
penetration testing |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Examining Penetration Tester Behavior in the Collegiate Penetration Testing Competition · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2022 |
Systems and software security
vulnerability discovery |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Examining Penetration Tester Behavior in the Collegiate Penetration Testing Competition · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2022 |
Empirical software engineering › software engineering practice
security practices |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | Examining Penetration Tester Behavior in the Collegiate Penetration Testing Competition · ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 2022 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
vulnerability mapping · 1.1timeline construction · 1.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Examining Penetration Tester Behavior in the Collegiate Penetration Testing CompetitionabstractPenetration testing is a key practice toward engineering secure software. Malicious actors have many tactics at their disposal, and software engineers need to know what tactics attackers will prioritize in the first few hours of an attack. Projects like MITRE ATT&CK™ provide knowledge, but how do people actually deploy this knowledge in real situations? A penetration testing competition provides a realistic, controlled environment with which to measure and compare the efficacy of attackers. In this work, we examine the details of vulnerability discovery and attacker behavior with the goal of improving existing vulnerability assessment processes using data from the 2019 Collegiate Penetration Testing Competition (CPTC). We constructed 98 timelines of vulnerability discovery and exploits for 37 unique vulnerabilities discovered by 10 teams of penetration testers. We grouped related vulnerabilities together by mapping to Common Weakness Enumerations and MITRE ATT&CK™. We found that (1) vulnerabilities related to improper resource control (e.g., session fixation) are discovered faster and more often, as well as exploited faster, than vulnerabilities related to improper access control (e.g., weak password requirements), (2) there is a clear process followed by penetration testers of discovery/collection to lateral movement/pre-attack. Our methodology facilitates quicker analysis of vulnerabilities in future CPTC events. Benjamin S. Meyers, Sultan Fahad Almassari, Brandon N. Keller, Andrew Meneely |
ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. | 2 |