Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Liana Hadarean
dblp:09/9862
· DBLP profile ↗
11ranked-venue papers
3as first author
3since 2021 · last 2024
0009-0007-2146-7303ORCID · verified
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 9 · 2 first-author · 3 since 2021Theory of computation · 5 · 2 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.
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers |
Program analysis · 72% Software maintenance and evolution · 28% | |
| Network and information security
2 papers |
Authentication and access control · 44% Systems and software security · 34% Usable security · 22% | |
| Theoretical computer science
2 papers |
Automated reasoning and model checking · 100% | |
| Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper |
Cloud and datacenter computing · 100% |
Topics — the 11 heaviest of 13, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Program analysis
static analysis |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Compositional Taint Analysis for Enforcing Security Policies at Scale · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2023 |
Program analysis › static analysis
taint analysis |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Compositional Taint Analysis for Enforcing Security Policies at Scale · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2023 |
Software maintenance and evolution › API usage
API usage analysis |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | RAPID: checking API usage for the cloud in the cloud · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2021 |
Program analysis › type-based analysis
typestate analysis |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | RAPID: checking API usage for the cloud in the cloud · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2021 |
Authentication and access control
access control |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Block public access: trust safety verification of access control policies · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2020 |
Authentication and access control › access control
policy verification |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Block public access: trust safety verification of access control policies · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2020 |
Usable security
trust and safety |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Block public access: trust safety verification of access control policies · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2020 |
Automated reasoning and model checking
satisfiability modulo theories |
0.3 | 2 | 2014 | A Tale of Two Solvers: Eager and Lazy Approaches to Bit-Vectors · CAV 2014 CVC4 · CAV 2011 |
Automated reasoning and model checking › decision procedures
bit-vector reasoning |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | A Tale of Two Solvers: Eager and Lazy Approaches to Bit-Vectors · CAV 2014 |
Cloud and datacenter computing › cloud security
access control policies |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | Block public access: trust safety verification of access control policies · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2020 |
Cloud and datacenter computing
cloud security |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | Block public access: trust safety verification of access control policies · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2020 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
object-sensitive analysis · 1.3field-sensitive analysis · 1.3context-sensitive analysis · 1.3compositional analysis · 1.3residual policy computation · 0.9formal verification · 0.9SMT solving · 0.9static dataflow analysis · 0.7static data flow analysis · 0.7value-flow analysis · 0.5
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | State of the art in program analysis
Pietro Ferrara 0001, Liana Hadarean |
Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. | 2 |
| 2023 | Compositional Taint Analysis for Enforcing Security Policies at ScaleabstractAutomated static dataflow analysis is an effective technique for detecting security critical issues like sensitive data leak, and vulnerability to injection attacks. Ensuring high precision and recall requires an analysis that is context, field and object sensitive. However, it is challenging to attain high precision and recall and scale to large industrial code bases. Compositional style analyses in which individual software components are analyzed separately, independent from their usage contexts, compute reusable summaries of components. This is an essential feature when deploying such analyses in CI/CD at code-review time or when scanning deployed container images. In both these settings the majority of software components stay the same between subsequent scans. However, it is not obvious how to extend such analyses to check the kind of contextual taint specifications that arise in practice, while maintaining compositionality. Subarno Banerjee, Siwei Cui, Michael Emmi, Antonio Filieri, Liana Hadarean, Linghui Luo, Goran Piskachev, Nicolás Rosner, Aritra Sengupta, Omer Tripp, Jingbo Wang 0006 |
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE | 5 |
| 2021 | RAPID: checking API usage for the cloud in the cloudabstractWe present RAPID, an industrial-strength analysis developed at AWS that aims to help developers by providing automatic, fast and actionable feedback about correct usage of cloud-service APIs. RAPID’s design is based on the insight that cloud service APIs are structured around short-lived request- and response-objects whose usage patterns can be specified as value-dependent type-state automata and be verified by combining local type-state with global value-flow analyses. We describe various challenges that arose to deploy RAPID at scale. Finally, we present an evaluation that validates our design choices, deployment heuristics, and shows that RAPID is able to quickly and precisely report a wide variety of useful API misuse violations in large, industrial-strength code bases. Michael Emmi, Liana Hadarean, Ranjit Jhala, Lee Pike, Nicolás Rosner, Martin Schäf, Aritra Sengupta, Willem Visser |
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE | 2 |
| 2020 | One-click formal methodsabstractFormal methods have been successfully applied in domains such as microprocessor hardware design and aerospace, e.g., proofs of security properties for helicopter control systems [4]. However, despite 50 years of research and development, we have not seen wide adoption of formal methods for large and complex systems such as web services, industrial automation, or enterprise support software. One of the key difficulties when proving security, safety, and robustness of these systems is the problem of finding the models of system architectures necessary for analysis. Additionally, the size of the potential user community and the business value typically does not justify the creation of scalable and easy-to-use tools for formal verification. Liana Hadarean |
ICST | 1 |
| 2020 | Block public access: trust safety verification of access control policiesabstractData stored in cloud services is highly sensitive and so access to it is controlled via policies written in domain-specific languages (DSLs). The expressiveness of these DSLs provides users flexibility to cover a wide variety of uses cases, however, unintended misconfigurations can lead to potential security issues. We introduce Block Public Access, a tool that formally verifies policies to ensure that they only allow access to trusted principals, i.e. that they prohibit access to the general public. To this end, we formalize the notion of Trust Safety that formally characterizes whether or not a policy allows unconstrained (public) access. Next, we present a method to compile the policy down to a logical formula whose unsatisfiability can be (1) checked by SMT and (2) ensures Trust Safety. The constructs of the policy DSLs render unsatisfiability checking PSPACE-complete, which precludes verifying the millions of requests per second seen at cloud scale. Hence, we present an approach that leverages the structure of the policy DSL to compute a much smaller residual policy that corresponds only to untrusted accesses. Our approach allows Block Public Access to, in the common case, syntactically verify Trust Safety without having to query the SMT solver. We have implemented Block Public Access and present an evaluation showing how the above optimization yields a low-latency policy verifier that the S3 team at AWS has integrated into their authorization system, where it is currently in production, analyzing millions of policies everyday to ensure that client buckets do not grant unintended public access. Malik Bouchet, Byron Cook, Bryant Cutler, Anna Druzkina, Andrew Gacek, Liana Hadarean, Ranjit Jhala, Brad Marshall, Daniel Peebles, Neha Rungta, Cole Schlesinger, Chriss Stephens, Carsten Varming, Andy Warfield |
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE | 6 |
| 2016 | Lazy proofs for DPLL(T)-based SMT solversabstractWith the integration of SMT solvers into analysis frameworks aimed at ensuring a system's end-to-end correctness, having a high level of confidence in these solvers' results has become crucial. For unsatisfiable queries, a reasonable approach is to have the solver return an independently checkable proof of unsatisfiability. We propose a lazy, extensible and robust method for enhancing DPLL(T)-style SMT solvers with proof-generation capabilities. Our method maintains separate Boolean-level and theory-level proofs, and weaves them together into one coherent artifact. Each theory-specific solver is called upon lazily, a posteriori, to prove precisely those solution steps it is responsible for and that are needed for the final proof. We present an implementation of our technique in the CVC4 SMT solver, capable of producing unsatisfiability proofs for quantifier-free queries involving uninterpreted functions, arrays, bitvectors and combinations thereof. We discuss an evaluation of our tool using industrial benchmarks and benchmarks from the SMT-LIB library, which shows promising results. Guy Katz, Clark W. Barrett, Cesare Tinelli, Andrew Reynolds 0001, Liana Hadarean |
FMCAD | 5 |
| 2016 | Automatic Generation of Propagation Complete SAT Encodings
Martin Brain, Liana Hadarean, Daniel Kroening, Ruben Martins |
VMCAI | 2 |
| 2015 | Fine Grained SMT Proofs for the Theory of Fixed-Width Bit-Vectors
Liana Hadarean, Clark W. Barrett, Andrew Reynolds 0001, Cesare Tinelli, Morgan Deters |
LPAR | 1 |
| 2014 | A Tale of Two Solvers: Eager and Lazy Approaches to Bit-Vectors
Liana Hadarean, Kshitij Bansal, Dejan Jovanovic, Clark W. Barrett, Cesare Tinelli |
CAV | 1 |
| 2013 | SMT proof checking using a logical framework
Aaron Stump, Duckki Oe, Andrew Reynolds 0001, Liana Hadarean, Cesare Tinelli |
Formal Methods Syst. Des. | 4 |
| 2011 | CVC4
Clark W. Barrett, Christopher L. Conway, Morgan Deters, Liana Hadarean, Dejan Jovanovic, Tim King 0001, Andrew Reynolds 0001, Cesare Tinelli |
CAV | 4 |