TBA AT THE TBA, MONTREAL, CANADA
48th IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy
Sponsored by the IEEE Computer Society's Technical Community on
Security and Privacy in cooperation with the International Association
for Cryptologic Research
Call for Papers
For any inquiries about paper submissions (questions regarding the
call for papers, conflicts, the submission servers, changes in author
affiliations, etc.), please directly contact the program chairs at
pcchairs-27@sp.ieee-security.org.
Since 1980 in Oakland, the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy has
been the premier forum for computer security research, presenting the
latest developments and bringing together researchers and
practitioners. We solicit previously unpublished papers offering novel
research contributions in any aspect of security or privacy. Papers
may present advances in the theory, design, implementation, analysis,
verification, or empirical evaluation and measurement of secure
systems. Theoretical papers must make a convincing case for the
relevance of their results to practice.
Topics of interest include:
Applied cryptography
Attacks with novel insights, techniques, or results
Authentication, access control, and authorization
Blockchains and distributed ledger security
Cloud computing security
Cyber physical systems security
Distributed systems security
Economics of security and privacy
Embedded systems security
Formal methods and verification
Hardware security
Hate, Harassment, and online abuse
Human-centered security and privacy
Intrusion detection and prevention
ML - Methods for confidentiality and privacy of data in ML systems
ML - Methods for integrity and availability of ML systems
ML - Novel attacks on ML systems
ML - Verifying security and privacy properties of ML algorithms
Malware and unwanted software
Network security and measurement
Operating systems security
Privacy-enhancing technologies, anonymity, and censorship
Program and binary analysis
Protocol security
Security and privacy metrics
Security and privacy policies
Security architectures
Security for at-risk populations
Software supply chain security
Systems security
User studies for security and privacy
Web security and privacy
Wireless and mobile security/privacy
This topic list is not meant to be exhaustive; S&P is interested in
all aspects of computer security and privacy. Papers without a clear
application to security or privacy, however, will be considered out of
scope and may be rejected without full review.
Systematization of Knowledge Papers
As in past years, we solicit systematization of knowledge (SoK) papers
that evaluate, systematize, and contextualize existing knowledge, as
such papers can provide a high value to our community. Suitable papers
are those that provide an important new viewpoint on an established,
major research area, support or challenge long-held beliefs in such an
area with compelling evidence, or present a convincing, comprehensive
new taxonomy of such an area. Survey papers without such insights are
not appropriate and may be rejected without full review. Submissions
will be distinguished by the prefix "SoK:" in the title and a checkbox
on the submission form. They will be reviewed by the full PC and held
to the same standards as traditional research papers, but they will be
accepted based on their treatment of existing work and value to the
community, and not based on any new research results they may
contain. Accepted papers will be presented at the symposium and
included in the proceedings. You can find an overview of recent SoK
papers at https://oaklandsok.github.io.
Submission Deadlines & Decisions
Similar to 2026, for each submission, one of the following decisions
will be made:
Accept: Papers in this category will be accepted for publication
in the proceedings and presentation at the conference. Within one
month of acceptance, all accepted papers must submit a
camera-ready copy incorporating reviewer feedback. The papers will
immediately be published, open access, in the Computer Society's
Digital Library, and they may be cited as "To appear in the IEEE
Symposium on Security & Privacy, May 2027".
Reject: Papers in this category are declined for inclusion in the
conference. Rejected papers must wait for one year, from the date
of original submission, to resubmit to IEEE S&P. A paper will be
judged to be a resubmit (as opposed to a new submission) if the
paper is from the same or similar authors, with a very similar
intellectual contribution, and a reviewer could write a
substantially similar summary of the paper compared with the
original submission. A paper that is completely rewritten and has
a new presentation but the same intellectual contribution is
considered a resubmission. Small extensions on the same paper or
just slightly changing the angle of presentation of the results is
considered a resubmission.
Resubmissions or double-submissions to other conferences will
result in submission penalties to all the authors for more than
one year. Note that the registration deadline is included in
double-submissions – papers that are under submission elsewhere at
the time of the registration deadline cannot be registered at S&P,
even if they may be rejected from the other venue between the
registration and submission deadlines.
Public Meta-Reviews: Similar to 2026, all accepted papers will be
published with a meta-review (< 500 words) in the final PDF that
lists: (a) the reasons the PC decided to accept the paper and (b)
concerns the PC has with the paper. Authors will be given the option
to write a response to the meta-review (< 500 words) which will be
published as part of the meta-review. Authors will be given a draft
meta-review at the time of acceptance. Authors will be given the
option of addressing some or all of the concerns while preparing their
camera ready. A shepherd will remove concerns from the meta-review if
they are sufficiently addressed by the revisions made.
The goal of this process is to provide greater transparency and to
better scope change requests made by reviewers. More information about
the reasons behind this change can be found on the 2024 IEEE S&P
website.
Note that under this acceptance process, there is no conditional
acceptance so papers submitted will be reviewed as is and accepted
based on the material that was submitted at the paper submission
deadline, with the exception of additional material explicitly
requested by the reviewers as part of the rebuttal process (see the
Rebuttal Format section below).
Symposium Event (Important Changes)
The number of papers accepted to IEEE S&P continues to grow
substantially each year. Due to conference venue limitations and
costs, each accepted paper will have: (a) a short talk presentation
(e.g., 5-7 minutes, length determined based on the number of accepted
papers) and (b) a poster presentation immediately following the talk
session containing the paper. All accepted papers are required to
present both a short talk and a poster.
Rebuttal Format
Papers reaching the second round of reviewing will be given an
opportunity to write a rebuttal to reviewer questions. The program
committee will assign each paper one of the following two rebuttal
options:
Non-interactive rebuttal (500 words): The authors are invited to
submit a 500 word rebuttal that should exclusively focus on
factual errors in the reviews and concrete questions posed by the
reviewers. New research results or other additional material
cannot be provided.
Interactive rebuttal (500 words and revised manuscript): The
authors are first invited to submit a 500 word rebuttal that
should exclusively focus on factual errors in the reviews and
concrete questions posed by the reviewers. The authors are then
also invited to follow up their rebuttal with a HotCRP comment
that provides new research results or other additional material
explicitly requested by reviewers. This HotCRP comment must be
accompanied by a revised manuscript PDF, as there will not be
additional opportunities for reviewing revisions later in the
process. The goal of this approach is to allow authors to submit
updates directly for reviewers to evaluate, rather than simply
describing a revision plan.This rebuttal period will be
interactive; that said, not all reviewers may choose to interact
with the authors.
More instructions will be sent to the authors at the beginning of the
rebuttal period and will indicate clearly which rebuttal option was
assigned to the submission. Failure to follow the instructions sent at
the beginning of the rebuttal (for example, submitting rebuttals over
the word count limit, including new material when a paper was assigned
a non-interactive rebuttal, or including new material that was not
requested by the reviewers in an interactive rebuttal) will result in
immediate rejection. The rebuttal period described here is separate
from the meta-review rebuttal given to accepted papers.
Any papers rejected during the rebuttal period must wait for one year,
from the date of original submission, to resubmit to IEEE S&P.
Important Dates
All deadlines are 23:59:59 AoE (UTC-12).
Abstract registration deadline means full and complete abstract,
complete list of authors with their ORCIDs, and conflicts of interest
declared on HotCRP. Neither the title, abstract, nor the author list
can be changed after the abstract registration deadline. Conflicts of
interest will be reviewed by the PC chairs and the authors will be
given an opportunity to address any discrepancies identified before
the paper submission deadline.
First deadline
Abstract registration deadline: June 4, 2026
Paper submission deadline: June 11, 2026
Early-reject notification: July 27, 2026
Reviews released: August 20, 2026
Rebuttal text due: August 25, 2026
Beginning of the interactive period for papers assigned an
interactive rebuttal: August 26, 2026
End of the interactive rebuttal and revised manuscript due:
September 4, 2026
Acceptance notification: September 11, 2026
Submission to shepherd: October 2, 2026
Camera-ready deadline: October 16, 2026
Second deadline
Abstract registration deadline: November 10, 2026
Paper submission deadline: November 17, 2026
Early-reject notification: January 18, 2027
Reviews released: February 11, 2027
Rebuttal text due: February 16, 2027
Beginning of the interactive period for papers assigned an
interactive rebuttal: February 17, 2027
End of the interactive rebuttal and revised manuscript due:
February 26, 2027
Acceptance notification: March 5, 2027
Submission to shepherd: March 26, 2027
Camera-ready deadline: April 8, 2027
Resubmission of Rejected Papers
As with previous IEEE S&P symposia with multiple submission cycles,
rejected papers must wait one year before resubmission to IEEE S&P.
Instructions for Paper Submission
These instructions apply to both the research papers and
systematization of knowledge (SoK) papers. All submissions must be
original work; the submitter must clearly document any overlap with
previously published or simultaneously submitted papers from any of
the authors. Failure to point out and explain overlap will be grounds
for rejection. Simultaneous submission of the same paper to another
venue with proceedings or a journal is not allowed and will be grounds
for automatic rejection. Contact the program committee chairs if there
are questions about this policy.
Cap on number of submissions
Any author may submit no more than 6 papers per cycle. In the event an
author registered more than 6 papers in a cycle, all the paper
registrations they submitted in that cycle will be desk rejected. To
avoid any ambiguity, this means that the submission cap is enforced at
the abstract registration deadline.
Anonymous Submission
Papers must be submitted in a form suitable for anonymous review: no
author names or affiliations (whether they are real or the default
fake names included in the IEEE template) may appear on the title
page, and papers should avoid revealing authors' identity in the
text. Authors should also take care in not including acknowledgments
that help identify them (e.g., funding information, names of
colleagues who gave feedback on the paper). When referring to their
previous work, authors are required to cite their papers in the third
person, without identifying themselves. In the unusual case in which a
third-person reference is infeasible, authors can blind the reference
itself.
When preparing the artifacts repository authors should take extra care
to not include authors' information in the repository or artifacts
content, so as not to break the anonymity of the paper
submission. Authors may want to consider using services such as
GitFront or Anonymous GitHub. Additionally, authors should make sure
to use account names and repository names that do not identify the
authors, and should remove any comments/text in the repository that
may directly identify the authors or the authors' institution.
Papers that are not properly anonymized may be rejected without review.
While a paper is under submission to the IEEE Security & Privacy
Symposium, authors may choose to give talks about their work, post a
preprint of the paper to an archival repository such as arXiv, and
disclose security vulnerabilities to vendors. Authors should refrain
from widely advertising their results, but in special circumstances
they should contact the PC chairs to discuss exceptions. Authors are
not allowed to directly contact PC members to discuss their
submission.
The submissions will be treated confidentially by the PC chairs and
the program committee members. Program committee members are not
allowed to share the submitted papers with anyone, with the exception
of qualified external reviewers approved by the program committee
chairs. Please contact the PC chairs if you have any questions or
concerns.
Papers that are desk rejected because they do not follow the template
formatting rules or break anonymity, and do not receive reviews, can
be resubmitted at the next cycle. (Papers that break anonymity and are
discovered during the review process, once reviews have been
completed, must wait for one year before being resubmitted to S&P.)
Artifacts
Papers are strongly encouraged to provide artifact repositories that
are anonymized as described above. Artifact repositories must not be
updated after the paper deadline has passed. Theoretical papers are
strongly encouraged to submit the proofs as artifacts on such
repositories at paper submission time.
Conflicts of Interest (COI)
PC members who have a genuine conflict of interest with a paper,
including the PC Co-Chairs and the Associate Chairs, will be excluded
from evaluation and discussion of that paper. During submission of an
abstract, the submission site will request information about conflicts
of interest of the paper's authors with program committee (PC)
members. It is the full responsibility of all authors of a paper to
identify all and only their potential conflict-of-interest PC members
before the abstract registration deadline, according to the following
definition. A paper author has a conflict of interest with a PC member
when and only when one or more of the following conditions holds (the
option you should select on HotCRP is listed within brackets):
[Co-author] The PC member is a co-author of the paper.
[Co-worker] The PC member has been a co-worker in the same company
or organization within the past two years.
For student interns, the student is conflicted with their
supervisors and with members of the same research group. If the
student no longer works for the organization, then they are not
conflicted with a PC member from the larger organization.
[Institutional] The PC member has been affiliated with the same
academic institution (e.g., University, research institute) as one
of the co-authors within the past two years.
Ph.D students have a conflict with the University they
graduated from for 2 years after their graduation date.
[Research collaborator] The PC member has been a collaborator on a
research paper within the past two years. The definition of
"research paper" includes ongoing work, unpublished work, and
technical reports.
[Funding collaborator] The PC member has been a collaborator
(e.g., a coPI) on a funding grant within the past two years,
regardless of the status of the grant (e.g., submitted, funded,
completed).
[Advisor] The PC member is or was the author's primary thesis
advisor, no matter how long ago.
[Advisee] The author is or was the PC member's primary thesis
advisor, no matter how long ago.
[Personal] The PC member is a relative or close personal friend of
the author.
For any other situation where the authors feel they have a conflict
with a PC member, they must explain the nature of the conflict via the
corresponding field in the HotCRP submission entry, such that the PC
chairs can review the conflict and confirm it is appropriate. The
program chairs will review declared conflicts. Papers with incorrect
or incomplete conflict of interest information as of the submission
closing time are subject to immediate rejection. Because it would not
be possible to handle conflicts of interest retroactively, changes to
the author list are not permitted after submission (see section on
Authorship below). Authors are responsible for reading the entire list
of PC members. Talking to someone about work submitted to S&P does not
necessarily constitute a conflict of interest, but the authors should
refrain from mentioning the name of the venue the work was submitted
to when presenting it.
COI developed during the reviewing process: Authors starting new
collaborations during the review period should make all their new
collaborators aware that they have submitted papers to S&P.
Research Ethics Considerations
All papers must complete the "Ethics Considerations" field when
registering a paper on HotCRP to make the relevant
disclosures. Authors are also welcome to add relevant details to their
submitted PDF (in the body or appendix of the paper), but regardless,
authors of accepted papers will be asked to add the "Ethics
Considerations" section itself to their manuscript at the camera ready
stage, where it will not count toward page limits. We expect this will
rarely be the case, but if there are no Ethics considerations, the
content of this field should be "None." That said, we encourage
authors to outline how they arrived at the conclusion that their work
does not involve Ethics considerations; otherwise reviewers will have
more difficulty assessing this themselves.
Research Ethics Committee
Similar to 2026, IEEE S&P 2027 has a research ethics committee (REC)
that will check papers flagged by reviewers as potentially including
ethically fraught research. The REC will review flagged papers and may
suggest to the PC Chairs rejection of a paper on ethical grounds. The
REC consists of members of the PC. Authors are encouraged to review
the Menlo Report for general ethical guidelines for computer and
information security research.
If a paper raises significant ethical and/or legal concerns, it will
be checked by the REC and it might be rejected based on these
concerns. The PC chairs will be happy to consult with authors about
how this policy applies to their submission Ethical Considerations for
Vulnerability Disclosure
Where research identifies a vulnerability (e.g., software
vulnerabilities in a given program, design weaknesses in a hardware
system, or any other kind of vulnerability in deployed systems), we
expect that researchers act in a way that avoids gratuitous harm to
affected users and, where possible, affirmatively protects those
users. In nearly every case, disclosing the vulnerability to vendors
of affected systems, and other stakeholders, will help protect
users. If a paper raises significant ethical and/or legal concerns, it
will be checked by the REC and it might be rejected based on these
concerns.
Authors are strongly recommended to disclose vulnerabilities in their
original submission. If that is not possible, authors should provide
details of why they have not disclosed the vulnerabilities yet, and
what is their disclosure plan. That is, the version of the paper
submitted for review must discuss in detail the steps the authors have
taken or plan to take to address these vulnerabilities.
Authors are required to disclose vulnerabilities no later than the
rebuttal deadline. If this is not possible, the authors should notify
the PC chairs by email as soon as possible. Longer disclosure windows
are at the discretion of the PC chairs and will only be considered in
exceptional situations.
Because there are no conditional accepts, reviewers can treat the lack
of disclosure of vulnerabilities as a concern that can lead to
rejection: reviewers need to make decisions based on the information
provided at the submission and rebuttal time. The PC chairs will be
happy to consult with authors about how this policy applies to their
submissions.
Note: Submitted papers should not include full CVE identifiers in
order to preserve the anonymity of the submission.
Ethical Considerations for Human Subjects Research
Submissions that describe experiments that could be viewed as
involving human subjects, that analyze data derived from human
subjects (even anonymized data), or that otherwise may put humans at
risk should:
Disclose whether the research received an approval or waiver from
each of the authors' institutional ethics review boards (e.g.,
IRB,) if applicable.
Discuss steps taken to ensure that participants and others who
might have been affected by an experiment were treated ethically
and with respect. Depending on the specifics of the work, this
might include (but is not limited to) information such as: how
participants were recruited; how coercive participation was
avoided; whether and how participants were compensated; mechanisms
for explicit or implicit consent; possible harms and how they were
minimized; how potential benefits were weighed against risks; and
steps taken to maintain confidentiality of participants and their
data.
If a submission deals with any kind of personally identifiable
information (PII) or other kinds of sensitive data, the Ethical
Considerations field submitted through HotCRP must discuss in detail
the steps the authors have taken to mitigate harms to the persons
identified.
Ethical Considerations for Working With Live Systems
Submissions that describe experiments involving measuring, testing,
exploiting, or otherwise interacting with live systems that do not
belong to the authors should discuss in detail the steps the authors
have taken to mitigate harm or disruption to these systems. Harm or
disruption could include (but is not limited to) accessing
confidential information, overwriting data, disrupting normal system
operations, wasting resources or employee time at the organizations
hosting the system under study, and upsetting or confusing owners,
operators, or users of the system under study. Submissions should:
Explain whether or not the authors had permission to conduct the
described study. If not, explain why permission was either not
needed or not feasible.
Discuss how the potential benefits of the study were weighed
against the risk of harms.
Ethics Considerations for Developing New Tools or Technologies
Submissions that develop new tools or technologies – including but not
limited to new modes of attack or new tools for privacy or anonymity –
should discuss in detail whether and how these tools could be used for
harm. In particular, submissions should:
Discuss how the newly developed tool or technology could be
misused. What harms could result, and how likely are these harms?
What if anything can or should be done, by the author or by other
users of the technology, to limit these risks?
Discuss how the benefits of the potential benefits of the new
technology were weighed against the risk of harms.
Financial and Non-financial Competing Interests
In the interests of transparency and to help readers form their own
judgement of potential bias, the IEEE Symposium on Security & Privacy
requires authors and PC members to declare any competing financial
and/or non-financial interests in relation to the work
described. Authors need to include a disclosure of relevant financial
interests in the camera-ready versions of their papers. This includes
not just the standard funding lines, but should also include
disclosures of any financial interest related to the research
described. For example, "Author X is on the Technical Advisory Board
of the ByteCoin Foundation," or "Professor Y is the CTO of
DoubleDefense, which specializes in malware analysis." More
information regarding this policy is available here.
Page Limit and Formatting
Submitted papers may include up to 13 pages of text and up to 5 pages
for references and appendices, totaling no more than 18 pages. All
text and figures past page 13 must be clearly marked as part of the
appendix. The final camera-ready paper must be no more than 18 pages,
although, at the PC chairs' discretion, additional pages may be
allowed. Reviewers are not required to read appendices. For SoK
papers, the references do not count towards the number of pages.
Submitted papers cannot use additional pages at submission time
without the explicit approval of PC Chairs. Papers that are over the
allowed number of pages will be rejected without review.
Papers must be formatted for US letter (not A4) size paper. All
submissions must use the IEEE "compsoc" conference proceedings
template. LaTeX submissions using the IEEE templates must use
IEEEtran.cls version 1.8b with options "conference,compsoc." (That is,
begin your LaTeX document with the line
\documentclass[conference,compsoc]{IEEEtran}.). See the "IEEE Demo
Template for Computer Society Conferences" Overleaf template for an
example. We are not aware of an MS Word template that matches this
style.
Papers that fail to use the "compsoc" template (including using the
non-compsoc IEEE conference template), modify margins, font, or line
spacing, or use egregious space scrunching are subject to rejection
without review. Authors are responsible for verifying the paper format
(e.g., compare with the above linked Overleaf template). While HotCRP
provides some automated checking, the checks are limited. Note that
some LaTeX packages (e.g., \usepackage{usenix}) override the compsoc
formatting and must be removed.
Withdrawing Policy
A paper can be withdrawn at any point before the reviews have been
sent to the authors. Once the reviews have been sent to the authors,
the paper can not be withdrawn.
Authorship Policy
Changes to the authorship list (adding, removing, reordering authors)
are not permitted after the abstract registration deadline. Once the
paper is accepted, the authors can request approval from the TPC
Chairs to make changes to the ordering or affiliation in justified
circumstances. If authors anticipate that they might change
affiliation during the time the paper is under submission it is
recommended to mark both the current and future institution as
COI. Per the generative AI policy found below, an AI cannot be listed
as an author of a submission. ORCID requirement: All authors are
required to submit an ORCID number at abstract submission time. You
can obtain an ORCID number here. ORCID accounts must use emails that
are identical with the ones used in HotCRP for the paper submission,
and they must include complete names that match the names of the
authors listed on HotCRP. Papers that do not submit ORCID numbers for
all authors and do not follow the rules above will be desk rejected.
Conference Submission Server
Submissions must be in Portable Document Format (.pdf). Authors should
pay special attention to unusual fonts, images, and figures that might
create problems for reviewers.
Submission servers:
First deadline: https://cycle1.sp2027.ieee-security.org/
Second deadline: TBA
IMPORTANT: The authors are responsible for having a draft submitted 24
hours before the deadline. Submissions that failed because the
submission server crashed either (a) within 24 hours of the submission
deadline or (b) after the submission deadline will not be
accepted. The PC Chairs will not respond to emails about this issue.
Publication and Presentation
Authors are responsible for obtaining appropriate publication
clearances. One of the authors of the accepted paper is expected to
register and present the paper at the conference.
Authors' Responsibility
It is the responsibility of all authors to be familiar with the
conference CFP and the policies it specifies.
Generative AI Policy
As an IEEE conference, S&P follows the IEEE Policy about the use of
generative AI which can be found here:
https://pspb.ieee.org/images/files/PSPB/opsmanual.pdf
Additionally, papers submitted at S&P must adhere to the following
policy. (This is based on the policy created by IEEE SaTML 2026).
Authors are permitted to use generative AI (e.g., large language
models), both as an object of study and when preparing their
paper. However, while the conference does not ban authors from using
generative AI or researching its security and privacy properties,
authors must (a) carefully consider their decision to use and/or study
generative AI and (b) are required to disclose and motivate the use of
generative AI in their submission. If the authors choose to use or
study generative AI in their work–whether as part of their research
methodology and/or in the process of preparing the manuscript–they
must complete the "Generative AI usage considerations" field on HotCRP
when registering their paper to make the relevant disclosures.
We ask that authors adhere to three key criteria with regards to their
use of generative AI in the scientific process:
Accuracy and Originality: First, authors are responsible for the
entire content of their paper, including all text and
figures. While any tool may be used for writing, it is crucial
that all content is accurate and original, ensuring transparency
and maintaining the integrity of the research process. In
particular, authors are responsible for the thoroughness of their
literature review and must determine relevant prior work and cite
it to ensure proper credit. If the authors have used generative AI
to improve their writing, they should state: ‘Generative AI was
used for editorial purposes in this manuscript, and all outputs
were inspected by the authors to ensure accuracy and originality.'
Transparency: Second, authors should carefully reason about the
implications of using generative AI in their work. If generative
AI was integral to the paper's methodology (including as an object
of study), its use should be explicitly detailed. Any idea
generated by a generative model should be independently developed
and validated by the authors. Furthermore, authors must elaborate
on how they handled limitations introduced in their work by their
use of generative AI. Such limitations could for instance include
difficulty obtaining results that are reproducible when the
generative model used is not open sourced.
Responsibility: Third, authors should take care to develop
generative AI (and ML models in general) responsibly. Any data
collection towards training models should take into account
relevant ethical considerations such as consent and data holder
rights, including intellectual property. Authors also have to
justify the need for the environmental footprint of their
experiments to achieve their goals and support their
methodology. We recognize calculating such a footprint is a
technical challenge in itself. We refer the authors to the work of
Lacoste et al. (https://mlco2.github.io/impact/) but welcome any
other good references (pcchairs-27@sp.ieee-security.org). We
emphasize that the goal here is not to calculate the exact
footprint but rather explain experimental choices made as part of
the scientific process (e.g., why was generative AI necessary, why
was a particular model size selected, how the authors minimized
the volume of queries made, which hardware was used to run
experiments).
Failure to comply with these rules is grounds for desk rejection
without further review of the submission and may be accompanied by a
submission ban for all the authors (for more than one year) at the
discretion of the PC chairs. We note that generative AI technology is
rapidly evolving. Authors are encouraged to reach out proactively to
the PC chairs should they face uncertainties about the above rules or
how they apply to their research.
Program chairs' discretion
The Program Committee Chairs maintain the discretionary authority to
implement administrative measures not explicitly codified in the Call
for Papers to safeguard the integrity and fairness of the peer-review
process.
Program Committee
PC Chairs
Michelle Mazurek University of Maryland
Nicolas Papernot University of Toronto and Vector Institute and Google DeepMind
Associate Chairs
Sahar Abdelnabi ELLIS
Varun Chandrasekaran UIUC
Giovanni Cherubin Microsoft Research
Daniele Cono D'Elia La Sapienza
Christina Garman Purdue University
Marco Guarnieri IMDEA Software Institute
Grant Ho University of Chicago
Amir Houmansadr University of Massachusetts Amherst
Limin Jia CMU
Frank Li Georgia Institute of Technology
Adwait Nadkarni William & Mary
Sara Rampazzi University of Florida
Vera Rimmer DistriNet KU Leuven
Stephanie Roos University of Kaiserslautern-Landau
Yuan Tian UCLA
Blase Ur University of Chicago
Tianhao Wang University of Virginia
Reviewing Mentorship Chair
Wouter Lueks CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security
REC Chairs
Sofía Celi Brave
Bogdan Carbunar FIU
PC Members
Aaron Johnson U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
Aashish Kolluri Microsoft
AbdelRahman Abdou Carleton University
Abhiram Kothapalli University of California, Berkeley
Adam Bates University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Adam Caulfield University of Waterloo
Adam Oest Amazon
Adil Ahmad Arizona State University
Adrien Koutsos Inria Paris
Ahmad-Reza Sadeghi Technical University Darmstadt
Akshita Maradapu Vera Venkata Sai Towson University
Alberto Sonnino UCL, Mysten Labs
Alejandro Russo Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg University, DPella AB
Alessandro Brighente University of Padova
Alexander Hoover Stevens Institute of Technology
Alexander Viand Belfort Labs / Cambridge University
Alexandra Henzinger MIT
Alexandre Debant Inria Nancy, France
Alexios Voulimeneas TU Delft
Ali Abbasi CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security
Ali Hajiabadi ETH Zurich
Allison McDonald Boston University
Alvaro Cardenas UC Santa Cruz
Amit Ami University of South Florida
Amit Kumar Sikder Iowa State University
Amrita Roy Chowdhury UCSD
Ana-Maria Cretu CISPA
Ananta Soneji Arizona State University
Andre Kassis University of Waterloo
Anna Crowder University of Florida
Anshuman Suri DatologyAI
Antreas Dionysiou Delft University of Technology (TU Delft)
Anwar Hithnawi Toronto
Apostolos Pyrgelis RISE Research Institutes of Sweden
Aravind Machiry Purdue University
Arjun Arunasalam Florida International University
Arslan Khan Pennsylvania State University
Arthur Azevedo de Amorim Rochester Institute of Technology
Arthur Gervais University College London (UCL)
Awais Rashid University of Bristol
Aymeric Fromherz Inria Paris
Aysajan Abidin COSIC KU Leuven
Bart Coppens Ghent University
Basavesh Ammanaghatta Shivakumar Virginia Tech
Benjamin Beurdouche Mozilla
Benjamin Dowling King's College London
Benny Pinkas Bar Ilan University and Apple
Bhupendra Acharya University of Louisiana at Lafayette
Bijeeta Pal Uber
Bimal Viswanath Virginia Tech
Binghui Wang Illinois Institute of Technology
Bo Chen Michigan Technological University
Bogdan Kulynych Lausanne University Hospital
Brendan Saltaformaggio Georgia Tech
Bruno Blanchet Inria
Byoungyoung Lee Seoul National University
Carmela Troncoso EPFL
Carrie Gates N/A
Cas Cremers CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security
Catuscia Palamidessi Inria
Ce Zhou Missouri S&T
Changyu Dong Guangzhou University
Chenglong Fu University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Chengyu Song UC Riverside
Christian Mouchet Unaffiliated
Christian Wressnegger Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)
Christina Poepper New York University Abu Dhabi
Christopher Kruegel UC Santa Barbara
Clara Schneidewind MPI-SP
Claudio Soriente GMV Spain
Daniel Genkin Georgia Tech
Daniele Antonioli EURECOM
Dave Tian Purdue University
David Barrera Carleton
David Heath University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
David Inyangson Johns Hopkins University
David Zage Intel Corporation
Davide Balzarotti EURECOM
Davide Maiorca University of Cagliari, Italy
Deepak Kumar University of California San Diego
Dimitar Dimitrov INSAIT, Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski"
Dimitrios Stavrakakis Technical University of Munich
Diogo Barradas University of Waterloo
Dominik Wermke North Carolina State University
Dongwei Xiao Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Earlence Fernandes UC San Diego
Ee-Chien Chang National University of Singapore
Eleonora Losiouk University of Padova
Elisaweta Masserova CMU
Emiliano De Cristofaro UC Riverside
Emily Wenger Duke University
Emma Dauterman Stanford University
Eric Pauley Virginia Tech/Terrace Networks
Eric Zeng Georgetown University
Erica Blum
Eugene Bagdasarian Cornell University
Euijin Choo University of Alberta
Evgenios Kornaropoulos George Mason University
Eyal Ronen Tel Aviv University
Fabio De Gaspari Sapienza University of Rome
Fabio Pierazzi King's College London
Faysal hossain Shezan University of Texas at Arlington
Fengwei Zhang Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech)
Fengyuan Xu Nanjing University
Florentin Rochet University of Namur
Florian Kerschbaum University of Waterloo
FNU Suya UT, Knoxville
Ghada Almashaqbeh University of Connecticut
Ghassan Karame Ruhr University Bochum
Giancarlo Pellegrino CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security
Giovanni Apruzzese Reykjavik University
Guanhong Tao University of Utah
Guannan Wei Tufts University
Guofei Gu Texas A&M University
Habiba Farrukh University of California, Irvine
Haipeng Cai University at Buffalo, SUNY
Hanshen Xiao Nvidia
Hao Chen University of California, Davis
Haotian Zhang NJIT
Harry Wai Ho Wong National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University
Harshavardhan Unnibhavi TU Munich
Heather Zheng University of Chicago
Heng Yin University of California, Riverside
Henri Devillez CNRS, LORIA
Hervé Debar Telecom SudParis
Hieu Le Independent Researcher
Hongxin Hu University at Buffalo
Hovav Shacham UCSD
Hugo Lefeuvre University of British Columbia
Hyungsub Kim Indiana University Bloomington
Ian Miers UMD
Ioana Boureanu Surrey Centre for Cyber Security, Univ. of Surrey, UK
Ivan De Oliveira Nunes University of Zurich
Jamie Hayes Google DeepMind
Jaron Mink Arizona State University
Jason Nieh Columbia University
Javier Carnerero-Cano IBM Research
Jean-Luc Watson NVIDIA
Jean-Philippe Monteuuis Qualcomm
Jianliang Wu Simon Fraser University
Jie Zhou The George Washington University
Jingxuan He University of California, Berkeley
Jinyuan Jia PSU
Jiska Classen Hasso Plattner Institute, University of Potsdam
Jon McCune Google LLC
Jonathan Katz Google
Joseph Bonneau New York University
Joseph Khoury Louisiana State University
Joseph Lallemand CNRS, IRISA, Univ. Rennes
Julia Len UNC
Julien Piet
Jun Han KAIST (Please note the change of my affiliation from Yonsei University as I recently moved to KAIST.)
Kaihua Qin University of Warwick
Kaiming Huang The Pennsylvania State University
Kangjie Lu University of Minnesota
Kari Kostiainen ETH Zurich
Kathrin Grosse Independent Researcher
Kaushal Kafle University of South Florida
Kaveh Razavi ETH Zurich
Kavous Salehzadeh Niksirat Max Planck Institute for Security and Privacy (MPI-SP)
Kelsey Fulton Colorado School of Mines
Kentrell Owens Max Planck Institute for Security and Privacy (MPI-SP)
Kevin Butler University of Florida
Kévin Huguenin University of Lausanne
Khandakar Ashrafi Akbar Towson University
Kimberly Ruth University of Chicago
Klaus v. Gleissenthall VU Amsterdam
Kyungtae Kim Dartmouth College
Lachlan Gunn Aalto University
Lesly-Ann Daniel EURECOM
Lichao Wu University of Bristol
Lorenzo De Carli University of Calgary
Lucianna Kiffer IMDEA Networks
Lucy Simko Barnard College, Columbia University
Lujo Bauer CMU
Mahmood Sharif Tel Aviv University
Man-Ki Yoon North Carolina State University
Marco Squarcina TU Wien
Marcus Botacin Texas A&M University
Marton Bognar DistriNet, KU Leuven
Mary Ellen Zurko MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Mathias Humbert University of Lausanne
Mathias Payer EPFL
Matthew Lentz Duke University and Broadcom
Mauro Conti University of Padua, Italy & Örebro University, Sweden
McKenna McCall Colorado State University
Md Rayhanur Rahman The University of Alabama
Md Tariqul Islam University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC)
Meera Sridhar University of North Carolina Charlotte
Meng Hao Singapore Management University
Mert Pesé Clemson University
Min Chen Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Ming Shi University at Buffalo (SUNY)
Mir Mehedi Pritom Tennessee Tech University
Mohammad Saidur Rahman University of Texas at El Paso
Moinul Hossain George Mason University
Moritz Schloegel ASU
Mridula Singh CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security
Mu Zhang University of Utah
Muoi Tran Chalmers University of Technology
Murtuza Jadliwala The University of Texas at San Antonio
Muslum Ozgur Ozmen Arizona State University
Nader Sehatbakhsh UCLA
Natalia Stakhanova University of Saskatchewan
Natasha Fernandes Macquarie University
Nathan Malkin New Jersey Institute of Technology
Neil Gong Duke University
Nick Sullivan Cryptography Consulting
Nicolas Christin CMU
Nikita Borisov University of Illinois
Nils Lukas MBZUAI
Ning Luo UIUC
Ning Zhang Washington University in St. Louis
Ninghui Li Perplexity AI and Purdue University
Nishanth Chandran Microsoft Research India
Nuno Santos INESC-ID, Instituto Superior Técnico, University of Lisbon
Omar Chowdhury Stony Brook University
Pardis Emami-Naeini Duke University
Pedro Moreno-Sanchez IMDEA Software Institute, MPI-SP
Peizhuo Lv Nanyang Technological University
Peng Gao Virginia Tech
Phani Vadrevu Louisiana State University
Pierre Ayoub LAAS-CNRS
Pierre Tholoniat Google
Piyush Kumar University of Michigan
Pramod Bhatotia TU Munich
Pratik Sarkar Obsidus Labs
Pratik Soni University of Utah
Prianka Mandal William and Mary
Pubali Datta University of Massachusetts Amherst
Qiben Yan Michigan State University
Qingzhao Zhang The University of Arizona
Ravishankar Borgaonkar SINTEF AS
Reethika Ramesh Palo Alto Networks
Reham Mohamed Aburas American University of Sharjah, UAE
Reihaneh Safavi-Naini University of Calgary
Riad Wahby CMU
Rikke Bjerg Jensen Royal Holloway, University of London
Romain Cayre INSA Toulouse / LAAS-CNRS
Ruoyu Song Purdue University
Ryan Wails Georgetown University
Saba Eskandarian University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Sajin Sasy CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security
Saman Zonouz Georgia Tech
Samuel Marchal VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd.
Sanghyun Hong Oregon State University
Santiago Torres-Arias Purdue University
Sarbartha Banerjee Sarbartha Banerjee
Sathvik Prasad North Carolina State University
Savvas Zannettou Delft University of Technology
Sayak Saha Roy Louisiana State University
Sazzadur Rahaman University of Arizona
Sebastian Szyller Aalto University
Sébastien Bardin CEA Lisit & Université Paris-Saclay
Sébastien Gambs Université du Québec à Montréal
Shagufta Mehnaz Penn State
Shahnewaz Karim Sakib The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Shangqi Lai The University of Melbourne
Shengwei An Virginia Tech
Shih-Wei Li National Taiwan University
Shiqing Ma University of Massachuseets Amherst
Shiza Ali The George Washington University
Shouling Ji Zhejiang University
Shruti Tople Azure Research, Microsoft
Shuai Wang Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Siddharth Garg NYU
Siddharth Muralee Purdue University
Simon Oya University of Waterloo
Simone Colombo King's College London
Sisi Duan Tsinghua University
Smirity Kaushik The George Washington University
Solmaz Salimi Sharif University of Technology
Song Li Zhejiang University
Sourav Das UIUC
Sri AravindaKrishnan Thyagarajan University of Sydney
Stephen Herwig William & Mary
Steve Kremer Inria
Stjepan Picek University of Zagreb & Radboud University
Sven Bugiel CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security
Swarn Priya Independent Researcher
Syed Rafiul Hussain Pennsylvania State University
Sze Yiu Chau Simon Fraser University
Taegyu Kim Pennsylvania State University
Takao Murakami The Institute of Statistical Mathematics (ISM)
Tanusree Sharma Penn state
Tapti Palit UC Davis
Teodora Baluta National University of Singapore
Thang Hoang Virginia Tech
Thomas Humphries University of Waterloo
Thomas Nyman Ericsson
Thomas Pasquier University of British Columbia
Thorsten Eisenhofer CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security
Thorsten Holz Max Planck Institute for Security and Privacy
Thorsten Strufe Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
Tiago Heinrich Max Planck Institute for Informatics
Tianshi Li Northeastern University
Tiantian Gong Technion & Yale University
Tianwei Zhang Nanyang Technological University
Ting Wang StonyBrook
Tristan Bilot University of British Columbia
Tudor Cebere Inria
Tudor Dumitras University of Maryland, College Park
Urs Hengartner University of Waterloo
Varun Madathil Yale University
Viktoria Koscinski Colorado State University
Vincent Bindschaedler UF
Vincent Immler Oregon State University
Wajih Ul Hassan University of Virginia
Weidong Zhu Florida International University
Wenbo Guo UCSB
Wendy Hui Wang Stevens Institute of Technology
Wenhai Sun Purdue
Wenjing Lou Virginia Tech
Wenke Lee Georgia Institute of Technology
Wenting Zheng Carnegie Mellon University
Xi He Waterloo
Xiangyu Zhang
Xiao Wang Northwestern University
Xiaochan Xue University of Hawaii at Manoa
XiaoFeng Wang NTU
Xiaojing Liao University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Xiaoning Liu RMIT University
Xinda Wang University of Texas at Dallas
Xingliang Yuan The University of Melbourne
Xugui Zhou Louisiana State University
Xusheng Xiao Arizona State University
Yang Xiao University of Kentucky
Yanxue Jia Illinois Institute of Technology
Yaxing Yao Johns Hopkins University
Yibo Wang University of Wyoming
Yidan Hu Rochester Institute of Technology
Yigitcan Kaya UC Santa Barbara
Yiming Li Nanyang Technological University
Yinzhi Cao Johns Hopkins University
Yizheng Chen University of Maryland
Yongdae Kim KAIST
Yoshimichi Nakatsuka ETH Zurich
Yousra Aafer University of Waterloo
Yu Zheng UC Berkeley
Yuan Hong University of Connecticut
Yuanyuan Yuan Tsinghua University
Yuchen Yang JHU
Yunang Chen Google
Yunming Xiao The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen
Yupeng Zhang University of Illinois Urbana Champaign
Yuzhe Tang Syracuse University
Zahra Ghodsi Purdue
Zane Ma Oregon State University
Zephyr Yao New Jersey Institute of Technology
Zhambyl Shaikhanov University of Maryland, College Park
Zhenlan Ji Nara Institute of Science and Technology
Zhikun Zhang Zhejiang University
Zhiqiang Lin The Ohio State University
Zhou Li University of California, Irvine
Zhuotao Liu Tsinghua University
Zhuqing Liu University of North Texas
Zikai Alex Wen University of Washington
Ziming Zhao Northeastern University
Zimo Chai Stanford
Ziqi Yang Zhejiang University