EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Robert R. Schneck
dblp:85/6718
· DBLP profile ↗
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Web and mobile security › mobile security
mobile code security |
0.0 | 1 | 2003 | A Sound Framework for Untrusted Verification-Condition Generators · LICS 2003 |
Program verification
proof-carrying code |
0.0 | 1 | 2003 | 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
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 | A Sound Framework for Untrusted Verification-Condition GeneratorsabstractWe 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 |
LICS | 2 |
| 2002 | A Gradual Approach to a More Trustworthy, Yet Scalable, Proof-Carrying Code
Robert R. Schneck, George C. Necula |
CADE | 1 |