Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Aurora Naska
dblp:277/8030
· DBLP profile ↗
5ranked-venue papers
0as first author
4since 2021 · last 2025
0009-0005-9528-656XORCID · corroborated
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Security and privacy · 5 · 4 since 2021
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
5 papers |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation · 72% Authentication and access control · 15% Web and mobile security · 13% |
Topics — the 7 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation
secure messaging |
2.0 | 3 | 2025 | Impossibility Results for Post-Compromise Security in Real-World Communication Systems · SP 2025 Formal Analysis of Session-Handling in Secure Messaging: Lifting Security from Sessions to Conversations · USENIX Security Symposium 2023 Clone Detection in Secure Messaging: Improving Post-Compromise Security in Practice · CCS 2020 |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › secure messaging
post-compromise security |
1.3 | 2 | 2025 | Impossibility Results for Post-Compromise Security in Real-World Communication Systems · SP 2025 Clone Detection in Secure Messaging: Improving Post-Compromise Security in Practice · CCS 2020 |
Web and mobile security › web application security
session management |
0.9 | 2 | 2025 | Formal Analysis of Session-Handling in Secure Messaging: Lifting Security from Sessions to Conversations · USENIX Security Symposium 2023 Impossibility Results for Post-Compromise Security in Real-World Communication Systems · SP 2025 |
Authentication and access control
authentication |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Breaking and Provably Restoring Authentication: A Formal Analysis of SPDM 1.2 including Cross-Protocol Attacks · CCS 2025 |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation
security protocol analysis |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Breaking and Provably Restoring Authentication: A Formal Analysis of SPDM 1.2 including Cross-Protocol Attacks · CCS 2025 |
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation
protocol verification |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Formal Analysis of SPDM: Security Protocol and Data Model version 1.2 · USENIX Security Symposium 2023 |
Authentication and access control
device authentication |
0.2 | 1 | 2023 | Formal Analysis of SPDM: Security Protocol and Data Model version 1.2 · USENIX Security Symposium 2023 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
formal analysis · 2.2formal proof · 0.9black-box experiment · 0.4
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Breaking and Provably Restoring Authentication: A Formal Analysis of SPDM 1.2 including Cross-Protocol AttacksabstractThe SPDM (Security Protocol and Data Model) protocol is a standard under development by the DMTF consortium, and supported by major industry players including Broadcom, Cisco, Dell, Google, HP, IBM, Intel, and NVIDIA. SPDM 1.2 is a complex protocol that aims to provide platform security, for example for communicating hardware components or cloud computing scenarios. SPDM is the core security mechanism of PCI Express (PCIe) and Compute Express Link (CXL). Cas Cremers, Alexander Dax, Aurora Naska |
CCS | 3 |
| 2025 | Impossibility Results for Post-Compromise Security in Real-World Communication SystemsabstractModern secure communication systems, such as iMessage, WhatsApp, and Signal include intricate mechanisms that aim to achieve very strong security properties. These mechanisms typically involve continuously merging fresh secrets into the keying material that is used to encrypt messages during communications. In the literature, these mechanisms have been proven to achieve forms of Post-Compromise Security (PCS): the ability to provide communication security even if the full state of a party was compromised some time in the past. However, recent work has shown these proofs cannot be transferred to the end-user level, possibly because of usability concerns. This has raised the question of whether end-users can actually obtain PCS or not, and under which conditions. Here we show and formally prove that communication systems that need to be resilient against certain types of state loss (which can occur in practice) fundamentally cannot achieve full PCS for end-users. Whereas previous work showed that the Signal messenger did not achieve this with its current session-management layer, we isolate the exact conditions that cause this failure, and we show why this cannot be simply solved in communication systems by implementing a different session-management layer or an entirely different protocol. Moreover, we clarify the trade-off of the maximum number of sessions between two users (40 in Signal) in terms of failure-resilience versus security. Our results have direct consequences for the design of future secure communication systems and could motivate either the simplification of redundant mechanisms or the improvement of session-management designs to provide better security trade-offs with respect to state loss/failure tolerance. Cas Cremers, Niklas Medinger, Aurora Naska |
SP | 3 |
| 2023 | Formal Analysis of SPDM: Security Protocol and Data Model version 1.2
Cas Cremers, Alexander Dax, Aurora Naska |
USENIX Security Symposium | 3 |
| 2023 | Formal Analysis of Session-Handling in Secure Messaging: Lifting Security from Sessions to Conversations
Cas Cremers, Charlie Jacomme, Aurora Naska |
USENIX Security Symposium | 3 |
| 2020 | Clone Detection in Secure Messaging: Improving Post-Compromise Security in PracticeabstractWe investigate whether modern messaging apps achieve the strong post-compromise security guarantees offered by their underlying protocols. In particular, we perform a black-box experiment in which a user becomes the victim of a clone attack; in this attack, the user's full state (including identity keys) is compromised by an attacker who clones their device and then later attempts to impersonate them, using the app through its user interface. Cas Cremers, Jaiden Fairoze, Benjamin Kiesl-Reiter, Aurora Naska |
CCS | 4 |