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

Julien Vanegue

dblp:77/8341 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
6ranked-venue papers
2as first author
4since 2021 · last 2025
0009-0006-7927-3205ORCID · corroborated

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 4 · 1 first-author · 3 since 2021Security and privacy · 1 · 1 first-authorTheory 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.

Network and information security
2 papers
Systems and software security · 100%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
3 papers
Program verification · 87% Program analysis · 13%

Topics — the 7 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Systems and software security › file system security
file access control
0.912025
AMPLE: Fine-grained File Access Policies for Server Applications · ASE 2025
Systems and software security
operating system security
0.912025
AMPLE: Fine-grained File Access Policies for Server Applications · ASE 2025
Program verification › termination analysis
non-termination proving
0.812024
Non-termination Proving at Scale · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2024
Program verification › program logic
separation logic
0.812024
Non-termination Proving at Scale · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2024
Program analysis › static analysis
bug detection
0.212024
Non-termination Proving at Scale · Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2024
Systems and software security
vulnerability discovery
0.212013
Towards Practical Reactive Security Audit Using Extended Static Checkers · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2013
Program verification › deductive verification
extended static checking
0.012013
Towards Practical Reactive Security Audit Using Extended Static Checkers · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2013

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

static analysis · 1.7dynamic analysis · 1.7under-approximation · 0.8pulse analyser · 0.8bi-abduction · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 AMPLE: Fine-grained File Access Policies for Server Applications
abstract
Userspace programs depend heavily on operating system resources to execute correctly, with file access being one of the most common and critical use cases. Modern Linux distributions include a vast number of files, many of which are unnecessary for the operation of most programs. However, existing access control mechanisms typically enforce coarse-grained policies that allow programs to access far more files than they actually require. This over-permissiveness significantly increases the system’s attack surface, exposing sensitive resources to potential exploitation.In this paper, we introduce AMPLE (Automated MAC PoLicy Extraction), a versatile tool that integrates both static and dynamic analysis to identify the files required by server applications. Ample accomplishes this by leveraging the distinct phases of server application execution, extracting runtime-dependent file paths by executing only the program’s initialization phase. This novel approach addresses the limitations of relying exclusively on static analysis, which fails to identify runtime-dependent file paths, as well as the shortcomings of purely dynamic analysis, which overlooks file paths accessed in non-executed code paths. To demonstrate its effectiveness, we evaluated Ample on ten widely-used server applications. The results show that Ample significantly reduces the number of accessible files, achieving an average reduction of over 99%, and limiting access to an average of fewer than 254 files per application. This substantial reduction helps restrict access to numerous security-critical files and mitigates 13 Linux kernel CVEs.
Seyedhamed Ghavamnia, Julien Vanegue
ASE2
2024 Non-termination Proving at Scale
abstract
Program termination is a classic non-safety property whose falsification cannot in general be witnessed by a finite trace. This makes testing for non-termination challenging, and also a natural target for symbolic proof. Several works in the literature apply non-termination proving to small, self-contained benchmarks, but it has not been developed for large, real-world projects; as such, despite its allure, non-termination proving has had limited practical impact. We develop a compositional theory for non-termination proving, paving the way for its scalable application to large codebases. Discovering non-termination is an under-approximate problem, and we present UNT er , a sound and complete under-approximate logic for proving non-termination. We then extend UNT er with separation logic and develop UNTer SL for heap-manipulating programs, yielding a compositional proof method amenable to automation via under-approximation and bi-abduction. We extend the Pulse analyser from Meta and develop Pulse ∞ , an automated, compositional prover for non-termination based onx UNTer SL . We have run Pulse ∞ on large codebases and libraries, each comprising hundreds of thousands of lines of code, including OpenSSL, libxml2, libxpm and CryptoPP; we discovered several previously-unknown non-termination bugs and have reported them to developers of these libraries.
Azalea Raad, Julien Vanegue, Peter W. O'Hearn
Proc. ACM Program. Lang.2
2023 A General Approach to Under-Approximate Reasoning About Concurrent Programs
Azalea Raad, Julien Vanegue, Josh Berdine, Peter W. O'Hearn
CONCUR2
2022 Adversarial Logic
Julien Vanegue
SAS1
2013 Towards Practical Reactive Security Audit Using Extended Static Checkers
abstract
This paper describes our experience of performing reactive security audit of known security vulnerabilities in core operating system and browser COM components, using an extended static checker HAVOCLITE. We describe the extensions made to the tool to be applicable on such large C++ components, along with our experience of using an extended static checker in the large. We argue that the use of such checkers as a configurable static analysis in the hands of security auditors can be an effective tool for finding variations of known vulnerabilities. The effort has led to finding and fixing around 70 previously unknown security vulnerabilities in over 10 millions lines operating system and browser code.
Julien Vanegue, Shuvendu K. Lahiri
IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy1
2011 ExplainHoudini: Making Houdini Inference Transparent
Shuvendu K. Lahiri, Julien Vanegue
VMCAI2