Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Tobias Limmer
dblp:87/869
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
3as first author
0since 2021 · last 2016
0000-0001-8904-0620ORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Computer networks · 2 · 2 first-authorSecurity and privacy · 1 · 1 first-authorSoftware engineering, systems software and programming languages · 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
1 paper |
Program analysis · 100% | |
| Network and information security
2 papers |
Systems and software security · 70% Network security · 30% | |
| Computer networks
1 paper |
Transport protocols and congestion control · 100% |
Topics — the 11 heaviest of 11, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Systems and software security › memory safety › memory error detection
buffer overflow detection |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | MACKE: compositional analysis of low-level vulnerabilities with symbolic execution · ASE 2016 |
Systems and software security
vulnerability discovery |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | MACKE: compositional analysis of low-level vulnerabilities with symbolic execution · ASE 2016 |
Program analysis
dynamic analysis |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | MACKE: compositional analysis of low-level vulnerabilities with symbolic execution · ASE 2016 |
Program analysis › symbolic execution
dynamic symbolic execution |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | MACKE: compositional analysis of low-level vulnerabilities with symbolic execution · ASE 2016 |
Program analysis › static analysis
interprocedural analysis |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | MACKE: compositional analysis of low-level vulnerabilities with symbolic execution · ASE 2016 |
Program analysis
static analysis |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | MACKE: compositional analysis of low-level vulnerabilities with symbolic execution · ASE 2016 |
Program analysis
symbolic execution |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | MACKE: compositional analysis of low-level vulnerabilities with symbolic execution · ASE 2016 |
Network security › intrusion detection and prevention
intrusion detection |
0.1 | 1 | 2010 | Dialog-based payload aggregation for intrusion detection · CCS 2010 |
Network security › intrusion detection and prevention › intrusion detection
network intrusion detection |
0.1 | 1 | 2010 | Dialog-based payload aggregation for intrusion detection · CCS 2010 |
Transport protocols and congestion control
TCP |
0.0 | 1 | 2010 | Dialog-based payload aggregation for intrusion detection · CCS 2010 |
Transport protocols and congestion control
transport protocols |
0.0 | 1 | 2010 | Dialog-based payload aggregation for intrusion detection · CCS 2010 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
static code analysis · 0.5constraint solving · 0.5pattern matching · 0.2
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | MACKE: compositional analysis of low-level vulnerabilities with symbolic executionabstractConcolic (concrete+symbolic) execution has recently gained popularity as an effective means to uncover non-trivial vulnerabilities in software, such as subtle buffer overflows. However, symbolic execution tools that are designed to optimize statement coverage often fail to cover potentially vulnerable code because of complex system interactions and scalability issues of constraint solvers. In this paper, we present a tool (MACKE) that is based on the modular interactions inferred by static code analysis, which is combined with symbolic execution and directed inter-procedural path exploration. This provides an advantage in terms of statement coverage and ability to uncover more vulnerabilities. Our tool includes a novel feature in the form of interactive vulnerability report generation that helps developers prioritize bug fixing based on severity scores. A demo of our tool is available at https://youtu.be/icC3jc3mHEU. Saahil Ognawala, Martín Ochoa, Alexander Pretschner, Tobias Limmer |
ASE | 4 |
| 2011 | Adaptive Load Balancing for Parallel IDS on Multi-Core Systems Using Prioritized FlowsabstractWe describe a load balancing system for parallel intrusion detection on multi-core systems using a novel model allowing fine-grained selection of the network traffic to be analyzed. The system receives data from a network and distributes it to multiple IDSs running on individual CPU cores. In contrast to related approaches, we do not assume a static association of flows to IDS processes but adaptively determine the load of each IDS process to allocate network flows for a limited time window. We developed a priority model for the selection of network data and the assignment process. Special emphasis is given to environments with highly dynamic network traffic, where only a fraction of all data can be analyzed due to system constraints. We show that IDSs analyzing packet payload data disproportionately suffer from random packet drops due to overload. Our proposed system ensures loss-free analysis for selected data streams in a specified time interval. Our primary focus lies on the treatment of dynamic network behavior: neither data should be lost unintentionally, nor analysis processes should be needlessly idle. To evaluate the priority model and assignment systems, we implemented a prototype and evaluated it with real network traffic. Tobias Limmer, Falko Dressler |
ICCCN | 1 |
| 2010 | Dialog-based payload aggregation for intrusion detectionabstractNetwork-based Intrusion Detection Systems (IDSs) such as Snort or Bro that have to analyze the packet payload for all the received data show severe performance problems if used in high-speed networks. Recent research results improve pattern matchers based on efficient algorithms or using specialized hardware. We approach the problem in a completely different way by considerably reducing the amount of data to be analyzed with only marginal impact on the detection quality. Dialog-based Payload Aggregation (DPA) uses TCP sequence numbers to decide which parts of the payload need to be analyzed by the IDS. Whenever a connection starts, or if the direction of the data transmission between peers changes, we forward the next N bytes of traffic to an attached IDS. All data transferred after the window is discarded. Our analysis using live network traffic and multiple Snort rulesets shows that most of the pattern matches occur at the beginning of connections or directly after direction changes in the data streams. According to our experimental results, our method reduces the data rate to be processed to around 1% in a typical network while retaining more than 98% of all detected events. Assuming a linear relationship between the data rate and processing time of an IDS, this results in a speedup of two magnitudes in the best case. Tobias Limmer, Falko Dressler |
CCS | 1 |
| 2009 | Flow-based TCP connection analysisabstractWe discuss the need for accurate analysis of TCP connections based on aggregated flow information. Due to increasing bandwidths in the Internet, flow metering is thought to be a promising solution for network monitoring, as packet-oriented state-based analysis reaches its limits and fast hardware support for flow metering is available. Motivated by earlier work on flow-based connection analysis, we investigate the quality of several stateless classifiers that can be used to determine the TCP connection state as either successful or failed. This information is strongly needed especially in the domain of attack detection and is usually produced by fine-grained analysis in the packet level. Furthermore, we determine appropriate configuration parameters for optimal flow metering by introducing a new statistical property, the maximum packet gap. We evaluated both, the classifiers and the packet gap analysis using a number of representative packet traces. Our best classifiers are able to correctly identify 95% of all connections with a fraction of the processing costs required for packet-based stateful connection tracking. Tobias Limmer, Falko Dressler |
IPCCC | 1 |