Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Eric Cornelissen

dblp:286/6372 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
2as first author
3since 2021 · last 2025
0009-0000-8376-6287ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Security and privacy · 3 · 2 first-author · 3 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
3 papers
Systems and software security · 68% Cryptographic protocols and secure computation · 29% Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis · 3%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers
Operating systems · 54% Runtime systems and virtual machines · 46%

Topics — the 9 heaviest of 11, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Systems and software security › security policy enforcement
runtime enforcement
0.912025
NodeShield: Runtime Enforcement of Security-Enhanced SBOMs for Node.js · CCS 2025
Systems and software security
software supply chain security
0.912025
NodeShield: Runtime Enforcement of Security-Enhanced SBOMs for Node.js · CCS 2025
Systems and software security › vulnerability discovery
prototype pollution
0.812024
GHunter: Universal Prototype Pollution Gadgets in JavaScript Runtimes · USENIX Security Symposium 2024
Systems and software security
vulnerability discovery
0.812024
GHunter: Universal Prototype Pollution Gadgets in JavaScript Runtimes · USENIX Security Symposium 2024
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › key exchange
group key agreement
0.612022
Security Analysis of the MLS Key Derivation · SP 2022
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › secure messaging
post-compromise security
0.612022
Security Analysis of the MLS Key Derivation · SP 2022
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation
security protocol analysis
0.612022
Security Analysis of the MLS Key Derivation · SP 2022
Operating systems › system security › operating system security › protection mechanism › isolation
sandboxing
0.312025
NodeShield: Runtime Enforcement of Security-Enhanced SBOMs for Node.js · CCS 2025
Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis › provable security › security notions › computational indistinguishability
key indistinguishability
0.212022
Security Analysis of the MLS Key Derivation · SP 2022

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

taint tracking · 1.7runtime monitoring · 1.7static analysis · 1.5computational security proof · 0.6TreeKEM · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 NodeShield: Runtime Enforcement of Security-Enhanced SBOMs for Node.js
abstract
The software supply chain is an increasingly common attack vector for malicious actors. The Node.js ecosystem has been subject to a wide array of attacks, likely due to its size and prevalence. To counter such attacks, the research community and practitioners have proposed a range of static and dynamic mechanisms, including process- and language-level sandboxing, permission systems, and taint tracking. Drawing on valuable insight from these works, this paper studies a runtime protection mechanism for (the supply chain of) Node.js applications with the ambitious goals of compatibility, automation, minimal overhead, and policy conciseness.
Eric Cornelissen, Musard Balliu
CCS1
2024 GHunter: Universal Prototype Pollution Gadgets in JavaScript Runtimes
Eric Cornelissen, Mikhail Shcherbakov, Musard Balliu
USENIX Security Symposium1
2022 Security Analysis of the MLS Key Derivation
abstract
Cryptographic communication protocols provide confidentiality, integrity and authentication properties for end-to-end communication under strong corruption attacks, including, notably, post-compromise security (PCS). Most protocols are designed for one-to-one communication. Protocols for group communication are less common, less efficient, and tend to provide weaker security guarantees. This is because group communication poses unique challenges, such as coordinated key updates, changes to group membership and complex post-compromise recovery procedures. We need to tackle this complex challenge as a community. Thus, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has created a working group with the goal of developing a sound standard for a continuous asynchronous key-exchange protocol for dynamic groups that is secure and remains efficient for large group sizes. The current version of the Messaging Layer Security (MLS) security protocol is in a feature freeze, i.e., no changes are made in order to provide a stable basis for cryptographic analysis. The key schedule and TreeKEM design are of particular concern since they are crucial to distribute and combine several keys to achieve PCS. In this work, we study the MLS continuous group key derivation (CGKD) which comprises the MLS key schedule, TreeKEM and their composition, as specified in Draft 11 of the MLS RFC, while abstracting away signatures, message flow and authentication guarantees. We establish the uniqueness and key indistinguishability properties of the MLS CGKD as computational security properties.
Christopher Brzuska, Eric Cornelissen, Konrad Kohbrok
SP2