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

Severin Meier

dblp:297/4125 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 since 2021Theory of computation · 1 · 1 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.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Program verification · 100%
Network and information security
1 paper
Systems and software security · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Program verification
hyperproperty verification
0.512021
Product Programs in the Wild: Retrofitting Program Verifiers to Check Information Flow Security · CAV (1) 2021
Program verification › security property verification
information flow verification
0.512021
Product Programs in the Wild: Retrofitting Program Verifiers to Check Information Flow Security · CAV (1) 2021
Systems and software security
information flow control
0.112021
Product Programs in the Wild: Retrofitting Program Verifiers to Check Information Flow Security · CAV (1) 2021

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

product program construction · 1.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2021 Product Programs in the Wild: Retrofitting Program Verifiers to Check Information Flow Security
abstract
Abstract Most existing program verifiers check trace properties such as functional correctness, but do not support the verification of hyperproperties, in particular, information flow security. In principle, product programs allow one to reduce the verification of hyperproperties to trace properties and, thus, apply standard verifiers to check them; in practice, product constructions are usually defined only for simple programming languages without features like dynamic method binding or concurrency and, consequently, cannot be directly applied to verify information flow security in a full-fledged language. However, many existing verifiers encode programs from source languages into simple intermediate verification languages, which opens up the possibility of constructing a product program on the intermediate language level, reusing the existing encoding and drastically reducing the effort required to develop new verification tools for information flow security. In this paper, we explore the potential of this approach along three dimensions: (1) Soundness: We show that the combination of an encoding and a product construction that are individually sound can still be unsound, and identify a novel condition on the encoding that ensures overall soundness. (2) Concurrency: We show how sequential product programs on the intermediate language level can be used to verify information flow security of concurrent source programs. (3) Performance: We implement a product construction in Nagini, a Python verifier built upon the Viper intermediate language, and evaluate it on a number of challenging examples. We show that the resulting tool offers acceptable performance, while matching or surpassing existing tools in its combination of language feature support and expressiveness.
Marco Eilers, Severin Meier, Peter Müller 0001
CAV (1)2