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

Marco E. Garza

dblp:410/5797 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
0009-0004-7666-5460ORCID · reported

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

Security and privacy · 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
Hardware security and side channels · 91% Cyber-physical and IoT security · 9%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Hardware security and side channels
intellectual property theft
0.912025
One Video to Steal Them All: 3D-Printing IP Theft through Optical Side-Channels · CCS 2025
Hardware security and side channels › side-channel attack › physical side channel
optical side channel
0.912025
One Video to Steal Them All: 3D-Printing IP Theft through Optical Side-Channels · CCS 2025
Hardware security and side channels
side-channel attack
0.912025
One Video to Steal Them All: 3D-Printing IP Theft through Optical Side-Channels · CCS 2025
Cyber-physical and IoT security
3d printing security
0.312025
One Video to Steal Them All: 3D-Printing IP Theft through Optical Side-Channels · CCS 2025

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

video analysis · 0.9trajectory reconstruction · 0.9equivalence checking · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 One Video to Steal Them All: 3D-Printing IP Theft through Optical Side-Channels
abstract
The 3D printing industry is rapidly growing and increasingly adopted across various sectors, including manufacturing, healthcare, and defense. However, the operational setup often involves hazardous environments, necessitating remote monitoring through cameras and other sensors, which opens the door to cyber-based attacks. In this paper, we show that an adversary with access to video recordings of the 3D printing process can reverse-engineer the underlying 3D print instructions. Our model tracks the printer nozzle's movements during the printing process and maps the corresponding trajectory into G-code instructions. Further, it identifies the correct parameters, such as feed rate and extrusion rate, leading us to be able to successfully perform IP theft. To validate the success of IP theft, we design an equivalence checker that quantitatively compares two sets of 3D print instructions, evaluating their similarity in producing objects that are alike in shape, external appearance, and internal structure. Our equivalence checker, unlike other simple distance-based metrics such as normalized mean square error, is rotational as well as translational invariant. This is necessary to capture shifts in the base/start position of the reverse-engineered instructions relative to the actual 3D print instructions that can happen due to different camera positions. Our model achieves an average accuracy of 90.87% and generates 30.20% fewer instructions compared to the current state-of-the-art methods that produce instructions that either lead to faulty or incorrect (in terms of difference in shape and internal structure) 3D prints. Additionally, we use our model to reverse-engineer the 3D print instructions from a video recording and print a fully-functional counterfeit object.
Twisha Chattopadhyay, Fabricio Ceschin, Marco E. Garza, Dymytriy Zyunkin, Animesh Chhotaray, Aaron P. Stebner, Saman A. Zonouz, Raheem A. Beyah
CCS3