Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Benjamin Andow
dblp:167/0165
· DBLP profile ↗
10ranked-venue papers
3as first author
3since 2021 · last 2024
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Security and privacy · 9 · 3 first-author · 3 since 2021Software 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.
| Network and information security
8 papers |
Privacy and data protection · 54% Web and mobile security · 15% Systems and software security · 15% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
3 papers |
Program analysis · 88% Programming languages and type systems · 12% | |
| Computer networks
2 papers |
Internet of things and sensor networks · 100% |
Topics — the 19 heaviest of 21, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Privacy and data protection
web privacy |
0.8 | 1 | 2024 | Understanding the Privacy Practices of Political Campaigns: A Perspective from the 2020 US Election Websites · SP 2024 |
Privacy and data protection
privacy policy |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Smart Home Privacy Policies Demystified: A Study of Availability, Content, and Coverage · USENIX Security Symposium 2022 |
Cyber-physical and IoT security › iot privacy
smart home privacy |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Smart Home Privacy Policies Demystified: A Study of Availability, Content, and Coverage · USENIX Security Symposium 2022 |
Web and mobile security
mobile application security |
0.5 | 2 | 2020 | Cardpliance: PCI DSS Compliance of Android Applications · USENIX Security Symposium 2020 AppContext: Differentiating Malicious and Benign Mobile App Behaviors Using Context · ICSE (1) 2015 |
Privacy and data protection
privacy compliance |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Cardpliance: PCI DSS Compliance of Android Applications · USENIX Security Symposium 2020 |
Privacy and data protection › privacy policy
privacy policy analysis |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Actions Speak Louder than Words: Entity-Sensitive Privacy Policy and Data Flow Analysis with PoliCheck · USENIX Security Symposium 2020 |
Internet of things and sensor networks
smart home |
0.3 | 2 | 2022 | Smart Home Privacy Policies Demystified: A Study of Availability, Content, and Coverage · USENIX Security Symposium 2022 Hey Alexa, is this Skill Safe?: Taking a Closer Look at the Alexa Skill Ecosystem · NDSS 2021 |
Web and mobile security › mobile security
android security |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Practical DIFC Enforcement on Android · USENIX Security Symposium 2016 |
Systems and software security
information flow control |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Practical DIFC Enforcement on Android · USENIX Security Symposium 2016 |
Web and mobile security
mobile security |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Practical DIFC Enforcement on Android · USENIX Security Symposium 2016 |
Systems and software security
operating system security |
0.2 | 1 | 2016 | Practical DIFC Enforcement on Android · USENIX Security Symposium 2016 |
Malware analysis › malware detection
behavior-based malware detection |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | AppContext: Differentiating Malicious and Benign Mobile App Behaviors Using Context · ICSE (1) 2015 |
Malware analysis
mobile malware detection |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | AppContext: Differentiating Malicious and Benign Mobile App Behaviors Using Context · ICSE (1) 2015 |
Program analysis › static analysis › interprocedural analysis
context-sensitive analysis |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | AppContext: Differentiating Malicious and Benign Mobile App Behaviors Using Context · ICSE (1) 2015 |
Program analysis
static analysis |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | AppContext: Differentiating Malicious and Benign Mobile App Behaviors Using Context · ICSE (1) 2015 |
Privacy and data protection
regulatory compliance |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | Cardpliance: PCI DSS Compliance of Android Applications · USENIX Security Symposium 2020 |
Program analysis
data flow analysis |
0.1 | 1 | 2020 | Actions Speak Louder than Words: Entity-Sensitive Privacy Policy and Data Flow Analysis with PoliCheck · USENIX Security Symposium 2020 |
Privacy and data protection
mobile app privacy |
0.1 | 1 | 2019 | PolicyLint: Investigating Internal Privacy Policy Contradictions on Google Play · USENIX Security Symposium 2019 |
Programming languages and type systems › type systems › security type systems
information-flow type systems |
0.1 | 1 | 2016 | Practical DIFC Enforcement on Android · USENIX Security Symposium 2016 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
natural language processing · 1.2skill ecosystem analysis · 1.0data flow analysis · 0.9website privacy measurement · 0.8decentralized information flow control · 0.5static program analysis · 0.4context extraction · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Understanding the Privacy Practices of Political Campaigns: A Perspective from the 2020 US Election WebsitesabstractPolitical campaigns are known to collect private user data, whether for building voter profiles, engaging with volunteers, or for soliciting donations. However, as such campaigns are classified as nonprofit in the United States (U.S.), their privacy practices have not received the same level of scrutiny as those of for-profit enterprises. This paper presents the Polityzer framework to evaluate the privacy posture of political campaign websites, and uses it to analyze 2060 campaign websites active during the U.S. election of November 2020. Our analysis leads to 20 key findings that demonstrate gaps in the privacy postures of political campaigns. For instance, we find that campaigns collect extensive private data they are not required to by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and a vast majority do not provide any form of privacy disclosure. When disclosures are provided, they are often incomplete. We also found that campaigns may be inadvertently sharing data with other campaigns through common fundraising platforms, without disclosing such sharing. Reporting the lack of privacy disclosure to the respective campaigns yields further insights into the rationale behind their security posture. Finally, we discuss ways in which our results could enable future research, inform emerging privacy regulations, and transform user behavior regarding data privacy in this critical context. Kaushal Kafle, Prianka Mandal, Kapil Singh, Benjamin Andow, Adwait Nadkarni |
SP | 4 |
| 2022 | Smart Home Privacy Policies Demystified: A Study of Availability, Content, and Coverage
Sunil Manandhar, Kaushal Kafle, Benjamin Andow, Kapil Singh, Adwait Nadkarni |
USENIX Security Symposium | 3 |
| 2021 | Hey Alexa, is this Skill Safe?: Taking a Closer Look at the Alexa Skill Ecosystem
Christopher Lentzsch, Sheel Jayesh Shah, Benjamin Andow, Martin Degeling, Anupam Das 0001, William Enck |
NDSS | 3 |
| 2020 | Actions Speak Louder than Words: Entity-Sensitive Privacy Policy and Data Flow Analysis with PoliCheck
Benjamin Andow, Samin Yaseer Mahmud, Justin Whitaker, William Enck, Bradley Reaves, Kapil Singh, Serge Egelman |
USENIX Security Symposium | 1 |
| 2020 | Cardpliance: PCI DSS Compliance of Android Applications
Samin Yaseer Mahmud, Akhil Acharya, Benjamin Andow, William Enck, Bradley Reaves |
USENIX Security Symposium | 3 |
| 2019 | ACMiner: Extraction and Analysis of Authorization Checks in Android's MiddlewareabstractBillions of users rely on the security of the Android platform to protect phones, tablets, and many different types of consumer electronics. While Android's permission model is well studied, the enforcement of the protection policy has received relatively little attention. Much of this enforcement is spread across system services, taking the form of hard-coded checks within their implementations. In this paper, we propose Authorization Check Miner (ACMiner), a framework for evaluating the correctness of Android's access control enforcement through consistency analysis of authorization checks. ACMiner combines program and text analysis techniques to generate a rich set of authorization checks, mines the corresponding protection policy for each service entry point, and uses association rule mining at a service granularity to identify inconsistencies that may correspond to vulnerabilities. We used ACMiner to study the AOSP version of Android 7.1.1 to identify 28 vulnerabilities relating to missing authorization checks. In doing so, we demonstrate ACMiner's ability to help domain experts process thousands of authorization checks scattered across millions of lines of code. Sigmund Albert Gorski III, Benjamin Andow, Adwait Nadkarni, Sunil Manandhar, William Enck, Eric Bodden, Alexandre Bartel |
CODASPY | 2 |
| 2019 | PolicyLint: Investigating Internal Privacy Policy Contradictions on Google Play
Benjamin Andow, Samin Yaseer Mahmud, Justin Whitaker, William Enck, Bradley Reaves, Kapil Singh, Tao Xie 0001 |
USENIX Security Symposium | 1 |
| 2017 | UiRef: analysis of sensitive user inputs in Android applicationsabstractMobile applications frequently request sensitive data. While prior work has focused on analyzing sensitive-data uses originating from well-defined API calls in the system, the security and privacy implications of inputs requested via application user interfaces have been widely unexplored. In this paper, our goal is to understand the broad implications of such requests in terms of the type of sensitive data being requested by applications. Benjamin Andow, Akhil Acharya, Dengfeng Li 0003, William Enck, Kapil Singh, Tao Xie 0001 |
WISEC | 1 |
| 2016 | Practical DIFC Enforcement on Android
Adwait Nadkarni, Benjamin Andow, William Enck, Somesh Jha |
USENIX Security Symposium | 2 |
| 2015 | AppContext: Differentiating Malicious and Benign Mobile App Behaviors Using ContextabstractMobile malware attempts to evade detection during app analysis by mimicking security-sensitive behaviors of benign apps that provide similar functionality (e.g., sending SMS messages), and suppressing their payload to reduce the chance of being observed (e.g., executing only its payload at night). Since current approaches focus their analyses on the types of security-sensitive resources being accessed (e.g., network), these evasive techniques in malware make differentiating between malicious and benign app behaviors a difficult task during app analysis. We propose that the malicious and benign behaviors within apps can be differentiated based on the contexts that trigger security-sensitive behaviors, i.e., the events and conditions that cause the security-sensitive behaviors to occur. In this work, we introduce AppContext, an approach of static program analysis that extracts the contexts of security-sensitive behaviors to assist app analysis in differentiating between malicious and benign behaviors. We implement a prototype of AppContext and evaluate AppContext on 202 malicious apps from various malware datasets, and 633 benign apps from the Google Play Store. AppContext correctly identifies 192 malicious apps with 87.7% precision and 95% recall. Our evaluation results suggest that the maliciousness of a security-sensitive behavior is more closely related to the intention of the behavior (reflected via contexts) than the type of the security-sensitive resources that the behavior accesses. Wei Yang 0013, Xusheng Xiao, Benjamin Andow, Tao Xie 0001, William Enck |
ICSE (1) | 3 |