Conference Record of the 33rd ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages 2006
DOI: 10.1145/1111037.1111070
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The essence of command injection attacks in web applications

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
262
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 318 publications
(263 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
1
262
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The results are shown in Table 13. CSSE [41] SQLCheck [42] SQLGuard [43] SQLrand [44] Tautologychecker Checker [43] Web App. Hardening [45] IDS [46] Our approach…”
Section: Figure 4 Overhead Performancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The results are shown in Table 13. CSSE [41] SQLCheck [42] SQLGuard [43] SQLrand [44] Tautologychecker Checker [43] Web App. Hardening [45] IDS [46] Our approach…”
Section: Figure 4 Overhead Performancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Detecting which parts of the code unit's inputs should be made concrete could benefit from existing work (e.g. [67,68]) over detection of SQL injections attacks.…”
Section: Future Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Taint analysis aims to detect illegal information flow by tracking the taint, and it has been widely used for analyzing malware [3,22,26,28,29,31,37]. As pointed out by Saxena et al [26], taint tracking usually incurs high performance overhead.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%