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.

Robert R. Schneck

dblp:85/6718 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2003
—ORCID · none

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

Theory of computation · 2 · 1 first-authorArtificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-author

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
Web and mobile security · 100%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Program verification · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Web and mobile security › mobile security
mobile code security
0.012003
A Sound Framework for Untrusted Verification-Condition Generators · LICS 2003
Program verification
proof-carrying code
0.012003
A Sound Framework for Untrusted Verification-Condition Generators · LICS 2003

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

untrusted verification-condition generator · 0.1soundness proof · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2003 A Sound Framework for Untrusted Verification-Condition Generators
abstract
We propose a framework called configurable proof-carrying code, which allows the untrusted producer of mobile code to provide the bulk of the code verifier used by a code receiver to check the safety of the received code. The resulting system is both more flexible and also more trustworthy than a standard proof-carrying code system, because only a small part of the verifier needs to be trusted, while the remaining part can be configured freely to suit the safety policy on one hand, and the structure of the mobile code on the other hand. In this paper we describe formally the protocol that the untrusted verifier must follow in the interaction with the trusted infrastructure. We present a proof of the soundness of the system, and we give preliminary evidence that the architecture is expressive enough to delegate to the untrusted verifier even the handling of loop invariants, indirect jumps and calling conventions.
George C. Necula, Robert R. Schneck
LICS2
2002 A Gradual Approach to a More Trustworthy, Yet Scalable, Proof-Carrying Code
Robert R. Schneck, George C. Necula
CADE1