@inproceedings{13993, author = {{Derrick, John and Doherty, Simon and Dongol, Brijesh and Schellhorn, Gerhard and Wehrheim, Heike}}, booktitle = {{Formal Methods - The Next 30 Years - Third World Congress, {FM} 2019, Porto, Portugal, October 7-11, 2019, Proceedings}}, pages = {{179--195}}, title = {{{Verifying Correctness of Persistent Concurrent Data Structures}}}, doi = {{10.1007/978-3-030-30942-8\_12}}, year = {{2019}}, } @article{10011, author = {{Fränzle, Martin and Kapur, Deepak and Wehrheim, Heike and Zhan, Naijun}}, journal = {{Formal Asp. Comput.}}, number = {{1}}, pages = {{1}}, title = {{{Editorial}}}, doi = {{10.1007/s00165-018-00477-6}}, volume = {{31}}, year = {{2019}}, } @inproceedings{10091, author = {{König, Jürgen and Wehrheim, Heike}}, booktitle = {{{NASA} Formal Methods - 11th International Symposium, {NFM} 2019, Houston, TX, USA, May 7-9, 2019, Proceedings}}, editor = {{M. Badger, Julia and Yvonne Rozier, Kristin}}, pages = {{263--279}}, publisher = {{Springer}}, title = {{{Data Independence for Software Transactional Memory}}}, doi = {{10.1007/978-3-030-20652-9\_18}}, volume = {{11460}}, year = {{2019}}, } @inproceedings{10092, author = {{Doherty, Simon and Dongol, Brijesh and Wehrheim, Heike and Derrick, John}}, booktitle = {{Proceedings of the 24th {ACM} {SIGPLAN} Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming, PPoPP 2019, Washington, DC, USA, February 16-20, 2019}}, editor = {{K. Hollingsworth, Jeffrey and Keidar, Idit}}, pages = {{355--365}}, publisher = {{{ACM}}}, title = {{{Verifying C11 programs operationally}}}, doi = {{10.1145/3293883.3295702}}, year = {{2019}}, } @inproceedings{10093, author = {{Beyer, Dirk and Jakobs, Marie-Christine and Lemberger, Thomas and Wehrheim, Heike}}, booktitle = {{Software Engineering and Software Management (SE/SWM 2019), Stuttgart, Germany, February 18-22, 2019}}, editor = {{Becker, Steffen and Bogicevic, Ivan and Herzwurm, Georg and Wagner, Stefan}}, pages = {{151----152}}, publisher = {{GI}}, title = {{{Combining Verifiers in Conditional Model Checking via Reducers}}}, doi = {{10.18420/se2019-46}}, volume = {{P-292}}, year = {{2019}}, } @inproceedings{10094, author = {{Sharma, Arnab and Wehrheim, Heike}}, booktitle = {{Software Engineering and Software Management, {SE/SWM} 2019, Stuttgart, Germany, February 18-22, 2019}}, editor = {{Becker, Steffen and Bogicevic, Ivan and Herzwurm, Georg and Wagner, Stefan}}, pages = {{157--158}}, publisher = {{{GI}}}, title = {{{Testing Balancedness of ML Algorithms}}}, doi = {{10.18420/se2019-48}}, volume = {{{P-292}}}, year = {{2019}}, } @inproceedings{10095, author = {{Richter, Cedric and Wehrheim, Heike}}, booktitle = {{Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems - 25 Years of {TACAS:} TOOLympics, Held as Part of {ETAPS} 2019, Prague, Czech Republic, April 6-11, 2019, Proceedings, Part {III}}}, editor = {{Beyer, Dirk and Huisman, Marieke and Kordon, Fabrice and Steffen, Bernhard}}, pages = {{229--233}}, publisher = {{Springer}}, title = {{{PeSCo: Predicting Sequential Combinations of Verifiers - (Competition Contribution)}}}, doi = {{10.1007/978-3-030-17502-3_19}}, volume = {{11429}}, year = {{2019}}, } @misc{10105, author = {{Haltermann, Jan}}, publisher = {{Universität Paderborn}}, title = {{{Analyzing Data Usage in Array Programs}}}, year = {{2019}}, } @inproceedings{10108, abstract = {{Recent years have seen the development of numerous tools for the analysis of taint flows in Android apps. Taint analyses aim at detecting data leaks, accidentally or by purpose programmed into apps. Often, such tools specialize in the treatment of specific features impeding precise taint analysis (like reflection or inter-app communication). This multitude of tools, their specific applicability and their various combination options complicate the selection of a tool (or multiple tools) when faced with an analysis instance, even for knowledgeable users, and hence hinders the successful adoption of taint analyses. In this work, we thus present CoDiDroid, a framework for cooperative Android app analysis. CoDiDroid (1) allows users to ask questions about flows in apps in varying degrees of detail, (2) automatically generates subtasks for answering such questions, (3) distributes tasks onto analysis tools (currently DroidRA, FlowDroid, HornDroid, IC3 and two novel tools) and (4) at the end merges tool answers on subtasks into an overall answer. Thereby, users are freed from having to learn about the use and functionality of all these tools while still being able to leverage their capabilities. Moreover, we experimentally show that cooperation among tools pays off with respect to effectiveness, precision and scalability.}}, author = {{Pauck, Felix and Wehrheim, Heike}}, booktitle = {{Proceedings of the 2019 27th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering}}, isbn = {{978-1-4503-5572-8}}, keywords = {{Android Taint Analysis, Cooperation, Precision, Tools}}, pages = {{374--384}}, title = {{{Together Strong: Cooperative Android App Analysis}}}, doi = {{10.1145/3338906.3338915}}, year = {{2019}}, } @inproceedings{13874, author = {{Isenberg, Tobias and Jakobs, Marie-Christine and Pauck, Felix and Wehrheim, Heike}}, booktitle = {{Tests and Proofs - 13th International Conference, {TAP} 2019, Held as Part of the Third World Congress on Formal Methods 2019, Porto, Portugal, October 9-11, 2019, Proceedings}}, pages = {{3--20}}, title = {{{When Are Software Verification Results Valid for Approximate Hardware?}}}, doi = {{10.1007/978-3-030-31157-5_1}}, year = {{2019}}, } @misc{3320, author = {{Rautenberg, Kai}}, publisher = {{Universität Paderborn}}, title = {{{Korrektheitsbeweise für Muster von Servicekompositionen}}}, year = {{2018}}, } @inproceedings{3414, abstract = {{Over the years, Design by Contract (DbC) has evolved as a powerful concept for program documentation, testing, and verification. Contracts formally specify assertions on (mostly) object-oriented programs: pre- and postconditions of methods, class invariants, allowed call orders, etc. Missing in the long list of properties specifiable by contracts are, however, method correlations: DbC languages fall short on stating assertions relating methods. In this paper, we propose the novel concept of inter-method contract, allowing precisely for expressing method correlations.We present JMC as a language for specifying and JMCTest as a tool for dynamically checking inter-method contracts on Java programs. JMCTest fully automatically generates objects on which the contracted methods are called and the validity of the contract is checked. Using JMCTest, we detected that large Java code bases (e.g. JBoss, Java RT) frequently violate standard inter-method contracts. In comparison to other verification tools inspecting (some) inter-method contracts, JMCTest can find bugs that remain undetected by those tools.}}, author = {{Börding, Paul and Haltermann, Jan Frederik and Jakobs, Marie-Christine and Wehrheim, Heike}}, booktitle = {{Proceedings of the IFIP International Conference on Testing Software and Systems (ICTSS 2018)}}, location = {{Cádiz, Spain}}, pages = {{39----55}}, publisher = {{Springer}}, title = {{{JMCTest: Automatically Testing Inter-Method Contracts in Java}}}, volume = {{11146}}, year = {{2018}}, } @inbook{3536, author = {{Schellhorn, Gerhard and Wedel, Monika and Travkin, Oleg and König, Jürgen and Wehrheim, Heike}}, booktitle = {{Software Engineering and Formal Methods}}, isbn = {{9783319929699}}, issn = {{0302-9743}}, pages = {{105--120}}, publisher = {{Springer International Publishing}}, title = {{{FastLane Is Opaque – a Case Study in Mechanized Proofs of Opacity}}}, doi = {{10.1007/978-3-319-92970-5_7}}, year = {{2018}}, } @article{3153, author = {{Doherty, Simon and Derrick, John and Dongol, Brijesh and Wehrheim, Heike}}, journal = {{CoRR}}, title = {{{Causal Linearizability: Compositionality for Partially Ordered Executions}}}, year = {{2018}}, } @unpublished{2711, abstract = {{In recent years, researchers have developed a number of tools to conduct taint analysis of Android applications. While all the respective papers aim at providing a thorough empirical evaluation, comparability is hindered by varying or unclear evaluation targets. Sometimes, the apps used for evaluation are not precisely described. In other cases, authors use an established benchmark but cover it only partially. In yet other cases, the evaluations differ in terms of the data leaks searched for, or lack a ground truth to compare against. All those limitations make it impossible to truly compare the tools based on those published evaluations. We thus present ReproDroid, a framework allowing the accurate comparison of Android taint analysis tools. ReproDroid supports researchers in inferring the ground truth for data leaks in apps, in automatically applying tools to benchmarks, and in evaluating the obtained results. We use ReproDroid to comparatively evaluate on equal grounds the six prominent taint analysis tools Amandroid, DIALDroid, DidFail, DroidSafe, FlowDroid and IccTA. The results are largely positive although four tools violate some promises concerning features and accuracy. Finally, we contribute to the area of unbiased benchmarking with a new and improved version of the open test suite DroidBench.}}, author = {{Pauck, Felix and Bodden, Eric and Wehrheim, Heike}}, booktitle = {{arXiv:1804.02903}}, title = {{{Do Android Taint Analysis Tools Keep their Promises?}}}, year = {{2018}}, } @inproceedings{5774, abstract = {{Information flow analysis investigates the flow of data in applications, checking in particular for flows from private sources to public sinks. Flow- and path-sensitive analyses are, however, often too costly to be performed every time a security-critical application is run. In this paper, we propose a variant of proof carrying code for information flow security. To this end, we develop information flow (IF) certificates which get attached to programs as well as a method for IF certificate validation. We prove soundness of our technique, i.e., show it to be tamper-free. The technique is implemented within the program analysis tool CPAchecker. Our experiments confirm that the use of certificates pays off for costly analysis runs.}}, author = {{Töws, Manuel and Wehrheim, Heike}}, booktitle = {{Theoretical Aspects of Computing – ICTAC 2018}}, isbn = {{9783030025076}}, issn = {{0302-9743}}, pages = {{435--454}}, publisher = {{Springer International Publishing}}, title = {{{Information Flow Certificates}}}, doi = {{10.1007/978-3-030-02508-3_23}}, year = {{2018}}, } @inproceedings{4999, author = {{Pauck, Felix and Bodden, Eric and Wehrheim, Heike}}, booktitle = {{Proceedings of the 2018 26th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering - ESEC/FSE 2018}}, isbn = {{9781450355735}}, publisher = {{ACM Press}}, title = {{{Do Android taint analysis tools keep their promises?}}}, doi = {{10.1145/3236024.3236029}}, year = {{2018}}, } @article{6828, author = {{Derrick, John and Doherty, Simon and Dongol, Brijesh and Schellhorn, Gerhard and Travkin, Oleg and Wehrheim, Heike}}, journal = {{Formal Asp. Comput.}}, number = {{5}}, pages = {{597--625}}, title = {{{Mechanized proofs of opacity: a comparison of two techniques}}}, doi = {{10.1007/s00165-017-0433-3}}, volume = {{30}}, year = {{2018}}, } @inproceedings{6836, author = {{Doherty, Simon and Dongol, Brijesh and Wehrheim, Heike and Derrick, John}}, booktitle = {{Integrated Formal Methods - 14th International Conference, {IFM} 2018, Maynooth, Ireland, September 5-7, 2018, Proceedings}}, pages = {{110--129}}, title = {{{Making Linearizability Compositional for Partially Ordered Executions}}}, doi = {{10.1007/978-3-319-98938-9\_7}}, year = {{2018}}, } @inproceedings{6838, author = {{Doherty, Simon and Dongol, Brijesh and Wehrheim, Heike and Derrick, John}}, booktitle = {{Integrated Formal Methods - 14th International Conference, {IFM} 2018, Maynooth, Ireland, September 5-7, 2018, Proceedings}}, pages = {{110--129}}, title = {{{Making Linearizability Compositional for Partially Ordered Executions}}}, doi = {{10.1007/978-3-319-98938-9\_7}}, year = {{2018}}, }