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

Mihhail Aizatulin

dblp:59/6356 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
3as first author
0since 2021 · last 2013
—ORCID · none

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

Security and privacy · 3 · 3 first-authorSoftware 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.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
3 papers
Programming languages and type systems · 38% Program analysis · 31% Program verification · 31%
Network and information security
2 papers
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation · 100%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 100%

Topics — the 8 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation
protocol verification
0.322012
Computational verification of C protocol implementations by symbolic execution · CCS 2012
Extracting and verifying cryptographic models from C protocol code by symbolic execution · CCS 2011
Program verification › protocol verification
protocol code verification
0.322012
Computational verification of C protocol implementations by symbolic execution · CCS 2012
Extracting and verifying cryptographic models from C protocol code by symbolic execution · CCS 2011
Program analysis
symbolic execution
0.322012
Computational verification of C protocol implementations by symbolic execution · CCS 2012
Extracting and verifying cryptographic models from C protocol code by symbolic execution · CCS 2011
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › statistical inference
bayesian inference
0.212013
A model-learner pattern for bayesian reasoning · POPL 2013
Programming languages and type systems
language design
0.212013
A model-learner pattern for bayesian reasoning · POPL 2013
Programming languages and type systems
probabilistic programming
0.212013
A model-learner pattern for bayesian reasoning · POPL 2013
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › protocol verification
computational soundness
0.112011
Extracting and verifying cryptographic models from C protocol code by symbolic execution · CCS 2011
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning
probabilistic inference
0.012013
A model-learner pattern for bayesian reasoning · POPL 2013

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

symbolic execution · 0.5typed bayesian model · 0.3markov chain monte carlo · 0.3factor graph · 0.3exact inference · 0.3cryptoverif · 0.3proverif · 0.2process calculus · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2013 A model-learner pattern for bayesian reasoning
abstract
A Bayesian model is based on a pair of probability distributions, known as the prior and sampling distributions. A wide range of fundamental machine learning tasks, including regression, classification, clustering, and many others, can all be seen as Bayesian models. We propose a new probabilistic programming abstraction, a typed Bayesian model, which is based on a pair of probabilistic expressions for the prior and sampling distributions. A sampler for a model is an algorithm to compute synthetic data from its sampling distribution, while a learner for a model is an algorithm for probabilistic inference on the model. Models, samplers, and learners form a generic programming pattern for model-based inference. They support the uniform expression of common tasks including model testing, and generic compositions such as mixture models, evidence-based model averaging, and mixtures of experts. A formal semantics supports reasoning about model equivalence and implementation correctness. By developing a series of examples and three learner implementations based on exact inference, factor graphs, and Markov chain Monte Carlo, we demonstrate the broad applicability of this new programming pattern.
Andrew D. Gordon 0001, Mihhail Aizatulin, Johannes Borgström, Guillaume Claret, Thore Graepel, Aditya V. Nori, Sriram K. Rajamani, Claudio V. Russo
POPL2
2012 Computational verification of C protocol implementations by symbolic execution
abstract
We verify cryptographic protocols coded in C for correspondence properties with respect to the computational model of cryptography. The first step uses symbolic execution to extract a process calculus model from a C implementation of the protocol. The new contribution is the second step in which we translate the extracted model to a CryptoVerif protocol description, such that successful verification with CryptoVerif implies the security of the original C implementation. We implement our method and apply it to verify several protocols out of reach of previous work in the symbolic model (using ProVerif), either due to the use of XOR and Diffie-Hellman commitments, or due to the lack of an appropriate computational soundness result. We analyse only a single execution path, so our tool is limited to code following a fixed protocol narration. This is the first security analysis of C code to target a verifier for the computational model. We successfully verify over 3000 LOC. One example (about 1000 LOC) is independently written and currently in testing phase for industrial deployment; during its analysis we uncovered a vulnerability now fixed by its author.
Mihhail Aizatulin, Andrew D. Gordon 0001, Jan Jürjens
CCS1
2011 Extracting and verifying cryptographic models from C protocol code by symbolic execution
abstract
Consider the problem of verifying security properties of a cryptographic protocol coded in C. We propose an automatic solution that needs neither a pre-existing protocol description nor manual annotation of source code. First, symbolically execute the C program to obtain symbolic descriptions for the network messages sent by the protocol. Second, apply algebraic rewriting to obtain a process calculus description. Third, run an existing protocol analyser (ProVerif) to prove security properties or find attacks. We formalise our algorithm and appeal to existing results for ProVerif to establish computational soundness under suitable circumstances. We analyse only a single execution path, so our results are limited to protocols with no significant branching. The results in this paper provide the first computationally sound verification of weak secrecy and authentication for (single execution paths of) C code.
Mihhail Aizatulin, Andrew D. Gordon 0001, Jan Jürjens
CCS1
2009 Computationally Sound Analysis of a Probabilistic Contract Signing Protocol
Mihhail Aizatulin, Henning Schnoor, Thomas Wilke
ESORICS1