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

Hassen Saïdi

dblp:43/691 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
15ranked-venue papers
4as first author
1since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 11 · 4 first-author · 1 since 2021Theory of computation · 7 · 2 first-author · 1 since 2021Security and privacy · 4Systems, architecture and hardware · 1

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.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
4 papers
Program verification · 99% Program analysis · 1% Concurrent programming · 0%
Network and information security
3 papers
Blockchain and cryptocurrency security · 62% Systems and software security · 20% Web and mobile security · 18%
Theoretical computer science
6 papers
Automated reasoning and model checking · 100%

Topics — the 20 heaviest of 22, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program verification
model checking
0.322026
Show Me The Money: An Exercise in Proof-Driven Software Understanding · CAV (3) 2026
Modular and Incremental Analysis of Concurrent Software Systems · ASE 1999
Program verification
proof assistants
0.312026
Show Me The Money: An Exercise in Proof-Driven Software Understanding · CAV (3) 2026
Program verification › model checking
software model checking
0.312026
Show Me The Money: An Exercise in Proof-Driven Software Understanding · CAV (3) 2026
Program verification
theorem proving
0.312026
Show Me The Money: An Exercise in Proof-Driven Software Understanding · CAV (3) 2026
Systems and software security
security policy enforcement
0.222012
Aurasium: Practical Policy Enforcement for Android Applications · USENIX Security Symposium 2012
Efficient Runtime Policy Enforcement Using Counterexample-Guided Abstraction Refinement · CAV 2012
Program verification
abstraction refinement
0.222012
Efficient Runtime Policy Enforcement Using Counterexample-Guided Abstraction Refinement · CAV 2012
Modular and Incremental Analysis of Concurrent Software Systems · ASE 1999
Web and mobile security › mobile security
android security
0.112012
Aurasium: Practical Policy Enforcement for Android Applications · USENIX Security Symposium 2012
Web and mobile security
mobile security
0.112012
Aurasium: Practical Policy Enforcement for Android Applications · USENIX Security Symposium 2012
Systems and software security › isolation
software sandboxing
0.112012
Aurasium: Practical Policy Enforcement for Android Applications · USENIX Security Symposium 2012
Program verification › abstraction refinement
counterexample-guided abstraction refinement
0.112012
Efficient Runtime Policy Enforcement Using Counterexample-Guided Abstraction Refinement · CAV 2012
Automated reasoning and model checking
runtime verification
0.112012
Efficient Runtime Policy Enforcement Using Counterexample-Guided Abstraction Refinement · CAV 2012
Program analysis › static analysis
abstract interpretation
0.011999
Modular and Incremental Analysis of Concurrent Software Systems · ASE 1999
Automated reasoning and model checking › model checking › state space reduction
abstract model checking
0.011999
Abstract and Model Check While You Prove · CAV 1999
Automated reasoning and model checking › program verification
deductive verification
0.011997
The Invariant Checker: Automated Deductive Verification of Reactive Systems · CAV 1997
Automated reasoning and model checking
model checking
0.011997
Construction of Abstract State Graphs with PVS · CAV 1997
Automated reasoning and model checking
reactive system verification
0.011997
The Invariant Checker: Automated Deductive Verification of Reactive Systems · CAV 1997
Program verification
invariant generation
0.011996
Powerful Techniques for the Automatic Generation of Invariants · CAV 1996
Automated reasoning and model checking
invariant generation
0.011996
Powerful Techniques for the Automatic Generation of Invariants · CAV 1996
Automated reasoning and model checking
theorem proving
0.011996
Verifying Invariants Using theorem Proving · CAV 1996
Concurrent programming
concurrency verification
0.011999
Modular and Incremental Analysis of Concurrent Software Systems · ASE 1999

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

PVS · 2.0seahorn · 2.0large language model · 2.0counterexample-guided abstraction refinement · 0.4theorem proving · 0.0refinement · 0.0model checking · 0.0abstract interpretation · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 Show Me The Money: An Exercise in Proof-Driven Software Understanding
abstract
Abstract We present a case study on proof-driven software understanding of mature, security-critical infrastructure. While formal methods are traditionally applied during the design phase, we present our experience applying formal reasoning onto a mature industrial C++ codebase. We focus on a formal analysis of the core algorithm that implements the Stellar blockchain’s order book. By combining large language models (LLMs), Prototype Verification System (PVS), and Seahorn , we are able to prove core properties of the production codebase. Our approach also identified an inconsistency in documentation related to the reachability of an exception location. Most importantly, however, we produce artifacts that make it easy for code changes to be checked against established invariants. This work demonstrates how the strategic combination of theorem proving and model checking provides a path for delivering robust assurance to legacy systems.
Joseph Tafese, Karthik Nukala, Hassen Saïdi, Natarajan Shankar, Arie Gurfinkel, Giuliano Losa
CAV (3)3
2020 Towards Automated Augmentation and Instrumentation of Legacy Cryptographic Executables
Karim M. El Defrawy, Michael E. Locasto, Norrathep Rattanavipanon, Hassen Saïdi
ACNS (2)4
2018 Wholly!: A Build System For The Modern Software Stack
Loic Gelle, Hassen Saïdi, Ashish Gehani
FMICS2
2012 Efficient Runtime Policy Enforcement Using Counterexample-Guided Abstraction Refinement
Matt Fredrikson, Richard Joiner, Somesh Jha, Thomas W. Reps, Phillip A. Porras, Hassen Saïdi, Vinod Yegneswaran
CAV6
2012 Aurasium: Practical Policy Enforcement for Android Applications
Rubin Xu, Hassen Saïdi, Ross J. Anderson
USENIX Security Symposium2
2008 Eureka: A Framework for Enabling Static Malware Analysis
Monirul Islam Sharif, Vinod Yegneswaran, Hassen Saïdi, Phillip A. Porras, Wenke Lee
ESORICS3
2001 Intrusion-Tolerant Group Management in Enclaves
abstract
Groupware applications require secure communication and group-management services. Participants in such applications may have divergent interests and may not fully trust each other. The services provided must then be designed to tolerate possibly misbehaving participants. Enclaves is a software framework for building such group applications. We discuss how the protocols used by Enclaves can be modified to guarantee proper service in the presence of nontrustworthy group members. We show how the improved protocol was formally specified and proven correct.
Bruno Dutertre, Hassen Saïdi, Victoria Coleman
DSN2
2001 A Technique for Invariant Generation
Ashish Tiwari 0001, Harald Ruess, Hassen Saïdi, Natarajan Shankar
TACAS3
2000 Model Checking Guided Abstraction and Analysis
Hassen Saïdi
SAS1
1999 Abstract and Model Check While You Prove
Hassen Saïdi, Natarajan Shankar
CAV1
1999 Modular and Incremental Analysis of Concurrent Software Systems
abstract
Modularization and abstraction are the keys to practical verification and analysis of large and complex systems. We present in an incremental methodology for the automatic analysis and verification of concurrent software systems. Our methodology is based on the theory of abstract interpretation. We first propose a compositional data flow analysis algorithm that computes invariants of concurrent systems by composing invariants generated separately for each component. We present a novel compositional rule allowing us to obtain invariants of the whole system as conjunctions of local invariants of each component. We also show how the generated invariants are used to construct, almost for free, finite state abstractions of the original system that preserve safety properties. This reduces dramatically the cost of computing such abstractions as reported in previous work. We finally give a novel refinement algorithm that refines the constructed abstraction until the property of interest is proved or a counterexample is exhibited. Our methodology is implemented in a framework that combines deductive methods supported by theorem proving techniques and algorithmic methods supported by model checking and abstract interpretation techniques.
Hassen Saïdi
ASE1
1997 Construction of Abstract State Graphs with PVS
Susanne Graf, Hassen Saïdi
CAV2
1997 The Invariant Checker: Automated Deductive Verification of Reactive Systems
Hassen Saïdi
CAV1
1996 Powerful Techniques for the Automatic Generation of Invariants
Saddek Bensalem, Yassine Lakhnech, Hassen Saïdi
CAV3
1996 Verifying Invariants Using theorem Proving
Susanne Graf, Hassen Saïdi
CAV2