An efficient and backwards-compatible transformation to ensure memory safety of C programs

By Wei Xu, Daniel C. DuVarney, R. Sekar. 2004

174 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Computer Networks and Communications, Hardware and Architecture

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Computer Networks and Communications

In Hardware and Architecture

Citations in the corpus

Forward Compatible Few-Shot Class-Incremental Learning (2022, background): “Backward Compatible Learning: The concept ‘compatibility’ is a design characteristic considered in software engineering [17, 29, 43, 49].”
Class-Incremental Learning: A Survey (2023, unknown): “CIL with Bidirectional Compatibility : Compatibility is a design characteristic in software engineering community [229], [230], [231], [232], which was introduced to the machine learning community in [233], [234].”
Backward-compatible constant-time exception-protected memory (2009, methodology): “While this improves backward compatibility somewhat, [22] is still hobbled by having to pass meta-data parameters to functions separately from the pointer parameters, forcing interface changes with functions for both parameters passed in and results returned back (Section 2.”
Practical Control Flow Integrity and Randomization for Binary Executables (2013, unknown): “A representative technique is automatic bounds checking [21][22]; however these techniques require recompilation from source, and their performance overheads are too high for practical deployment.”
Deep Class-Incremental Learning: A Survey (2023, unknown): “CIL with Bidirectional Compatibility: Compatibility is a design characteristic in software engineering community [240], [241], [242], [243], which was introduced to the machine learning community in [244], [245].”
CETS: compiler enforced temporal safety for C (2010, methodology): “Although use of fat pointers has been proposed in variety of contexts [5, 19, 23, 30], fat pointers have the drawback of changing memory layout in programmer-visible ways, and the modiﬁed memory layout makes interfacing with libraries challenging [10, 23].”
Efficient Techniques for Comprehensive Protection from Memory Error Exploits (2005, background): “Lower overheads are reported in [34], but the overheads can still be over 100% for some programs.”
Preventing Memory Error Exploits with WIT (2008, background): “Xu et al [45] describe a technique that improves the coverage of the previous bounds checkers and reduces their overhead.”
SGXBOUNDS: Memory Safety for Shielded Execution (2017, background): “The only exceptions are Software Fault Isolation (SFI) [39, 79], Data Space Randomization (DSR) [24, 28] and memory-safety techniques [17, 20, 35, 56, 58, 59, 67, 82].”
DieHard: probabilistic memory safety for unsafe languages (2006, methodology): “Assuming source code is available, a programmer can also compile the code with a safe C compiler that inserts dynamic checks for the remaining errors, further increasing running time [1, 3, 27, 41 , 42].”