Ancestors

Written by Daniel Gruss on 2025-01-20 at 19:53

Can I ask you all for a quick review of this idea?

Threat Model and Attack Scenario:

PC member A and B agree to not mark each other as a conflict and write each other favorable reviews and fight for each others papers.

Proposed Mitigation:

• Remove access of PC member A and B from all papers except the ones they are assigned

• Remove visibility of PC member A's and B's names from other reviewers

Conclusion:

Our approach solves the problem. PC member A and B cannot write each other favorable reviews or fight for each other's paper anymore.

Hoping for typical reviews from security folks here that identify any weaknesses or potential side effects ;)

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from lavados@infosec.exchange

Written by Bart Coppens on 2025-01-20 at 22:07

@lavados Assumptions: 1 you still allow bidding (as claimed later), 2 the second mitigation means that all review(er)s are anonymized (not just A and B). I don't think this helps: what stops A from bidding for B's paper, and fighting for it? A can still write favorable reviews, A can still fight; the only thing is that other reviewers now no longer know who's fighting for it?

This toot needs at least a major revision with better argumentation.

Score: 2. Weak reject

Expertise: 3. Knowledgeable

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from bartcopp@mastodon.social

Written by Daniel Gruss on 2025-01-20 at 22:13

@bartcopp Rebuttal:

1. Yes, A can bid for B's paper and fight for it.

2. Yes, A can still write favorable reviews and fight for B's papers.

3. Yes, it is correct that the other reviewers don't see anymore who is fighting for what.

However, we believe that the reviewer overlooked the subtleties of our design. In fact, we have proof that the system can be deployed as is because it is already deployed at conferences in practice. ;)

Also, at least it doesn't make things worse, right?

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from lavados@infosec.exchange

Written by Bart Coppens on 2025-01-20 at 22:23

@lavados It might actually make it worse: because now other reviewers who might be aware of the conflict can no longer notice the conflicting paper assignment and report it to the chairs. (I'm not sure this would actually happen in practice if one assumes the bystander effect, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.)

While I now see the subtleties of the design and why the authors are proposing it, unfortunately the rebuttal made it clear that this technique is not novel ;)

Score: 1. Reject

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from bartcopp@mastodon.social

Written by Daniel Gruss on 2025-01-20 at 22:25

@bartcopp oh damn it, the classic "no novelty" reject :D

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from lavados@infosec.exchange

Toot

Written by Bart Coppens on 2025-01-20 at 22:28

@lavados Rebuttals, not even once, right? ;) (The alternative would have been the minor revision/shepherding to make sure you cite this definitely very relevant paper that just happens to be co-authored by a random member of the PC ;) )

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from bartcopp@mastodon.social

Descendants