Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Brandon Falk
dblp:271/9716
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Computer networks · 1Security and privacy · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 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
2 papers |
Biometric security · 38% Security and privacy of machine learning · 36% Privacy and data protection · 20% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Software testing · 50% Program analysis · 50% | |
| Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper |
Virtual and augmented reality · 100% |
Topics — the 8 heaviest of 9, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Biometric security
behavioral biometrics |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | POSTER: ReAvatar: Virtual Reality De-anonymization Attack Through Correlating Movement Signatures · CCS 2021 |
Privacy and data protection
de-anonymization |
0.5 | 1 | 2021 | POSTER: ReAvatar: Virtual Reality De-anonymization Attack Through Correlating Movement Signatures · CCS 2021 |
Security and privacy of machine learning › adversarial example
adversarial audio perturbation |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Voiceprint Mimicry Attack Towards Speaker Verification System in Smart Home · INFOCOM 2020 |
Security and privacy of machine learning
adversarial example |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Voiceprint Mimicry Attack Towards Speaker Verification System in Smart Home · INFOCOM 2020 |
Biometric security
speaker verification |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Voiceprint Mimicry Attack Towards Speaker Verification System in Smart Home · INFOCOM 2020 |
Software testing
fuzzing |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Fuzzing: on the exponential cost of vulnerability discovery · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2020 |
Program analysis › static analysis
vulnerability detection |
0.4 | 1 | 2020 | Fuzzing: on the exponential cost of vulnerability discovery · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2020 |
Virtual and augmented reality
immersive interaction |
0.1 | 1 | 2021 | POSTER: ReAvatar: Virtual Reality De-anonymization Attack Through Correlating Movement Signatures · CCS 2021 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
machine learning · 1.0agglomerative clustering · 1.03d pose estimation · 1.0psychoacoustic masking · 0.4probabilistic analysis · 0.4adversarial examples · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | POSTER: ReAvatar: Virtual Reality De-anonymization Attack Through Correlating Movement SignaturesabstractVirtual reality (VR) is on the precipice of entering mainstream entertainment with devices equipped with a multitude of sensing, tracking, and internet capabilities that can reshape the current infotainment industry such as online gaming or conferences with novel features. With VR techniques, the online gamer or conference attendances could choose to keep their identity anonymous by easily altering their appearances (i.e., avatars). However, in this study, we present ReAvatar, a novel de-anonymization attack that identifies users by their virtual avatar via a correlation in specific recorded movements. Using 3D pose estimation, we train a sophisticated machine learning model with user movement data recorded while performing a set of movements in real life and then again with their avatars. We then map correlations between these two sets of movement data using a bespoke agglomerative clustering algorithm and establish relationship between the user's virtual and real-life identity. ReAvatar achieves 89.60% accuracy in detecting a unique user among multiple avatars. The security and privacy implications of this paper will be foundational for users and researchers alike that explore the realm of virtual reality. Brandon Falk, Yan Meng 0001, Yuxia Zhan, Haojin Zhu |
CCS | 1 |
| 2020 | Voiceprint Mimicry Attack Towards Speaker Verification System in Smart HomeabstractThe advancement of voice controllable systems (VC-Ses) has dramatically affected our daily lifestyle and catalyzed the smart home's deployment. Currently, most VCSes exploit automatic speaker verification (ASV) to prevent various voice attacks (e.g., replay attack). In this study, we present VMask, a novel and practical voiceprint mimicry attack that could fool ASV in smart home and inject the malicious voice command disguised as a legitimate user. The key observation behind VMask is that the deep learning models utilized by ASV are vulnerable to the subtle perturbations in the voice input space. To generate these subtle perturbations, VMask leverages the idea of adversarial examples. Then by adding the subtle perturbations to the recordings from an arbitrary speaker, VMask can mislead the ASV into classifying the crafted speech samples, which mirror the former speaker for human, as the targeted victim. Moreover, psychoacoustic masking is employed to manipulate the adversarial perturbations under human perception threshold, thus making victim unaware of ongoing attacks. We validate the effectiveness of VMask by performing comprehensive experiments on both grey box (VGGVox) and black box (Microsoft Azure Speaker Verification) ASVs. Additionally, a real-world case study on Apple HomeKit proves the VMask's practicability on smart home platforms. Yan Meng 0001, Jiahao Yu 0001, Chong Xiang 0001, Brandon Falk, Haojin Zhu |
INFOCOM | 5 |
| 2020 | Fuzzing: on the exponential cost of vulnerability discoveryabstractWe present counterintuitive results for the scalability of fuzzing. Given the same non-deterministic fuzzer, finding the same bugs linearly faster requires linearly more machines. For instance, with twice the machines, we can find all known bugs in half the time. Yet, finding linearly more bugs in the same time requires exponentially more machines. For instance, for every new bug we want to find in 24 hours, we might need twice more machines. Similarly for coverage. With exponentially more machines, we can cover the same code exponentially faster, but uncovered code only linearly faster. In other words, re-discovering the same vulnerabilities is cheap but finding new vulnerabilities is expensive. This holds even under the simplifying assumption of no parallelization overhead. Marcel Böhme, Brandon Falk |
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE | 2 |