arXiv subjects

Daniel W. Woods

Publications and source records attributed to Daniel W. Woods.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

"Abuse Risks are Often Inherent to Product Features": Exploring AI Vendors' Bug Bounty and Responsible Disclosure Policies

As vendors adopt AI technologies, security researchers are working to uncover and fix related vulnerabilities, which is important given AI systems handle sensitive data and critical functions. This process relies on vendors receiving and rewarding AI vulnerability reports. To assess current practices, we analyzed the vulnerability disclosure policies of 264 AI vendors. We employed a mixed-methods approach, combining snapshot and longitudinal qualitative analysis, as well as comparing alignment with 320 AI incidents and 260 academic articles. Our analysis reveals that 36% of AI vendors have no established policy, and only 18% mention AI risks. Data access, authorization, and model extraction vulnerabilities are most consistently declared in-scope. Jailbreaking and hallucination are most commonly declared out-of-scope. We identify three profiles that reflect vendors' different positions toward AI vulnerabilities: proactive clarification (n = 46), silent (n = 115), and restrictive (n = 103). Our alignment results suggest that vendors may address AI vulnerability disclosure later than academic research and real-world incidents.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2026

Who Shares What? An Empirical Analysis of Security Conference Content Across Academia and Industry

Security conferences are important venues for information sharing, where academics and practitioners share knowledge about new attacks and state-of-the-art defenses. Despite their importance, researchers have not systematically examined who shares information and which security topics are discussed. To address this gap, our paper characterizes the speakers, sponsors, and topics presented at prestigious academic and industry security conferences. We compile a longitudinal dataset containing 9,728 abstracts and 1,686 sponsors across four academic and six industry conferences. Our findings show limited information sharing between industry and academia. Conferences vary significantly in how equitably talks and authorship are distributed across individuals. The topics of academic and industry abstracts display consistent coverage of techniques within the MITRE ATT&CK framework. Top-tier academic conferences, as well as DEFCON and Black Hat, address the governance, response, and recovery functions of the NIST Cybersecurity Framework inconsistently. Commercial information security and insurance conferences (RSA, Gartner, Advisen and NetDiligence) more consistently cover the framework. Prevention and detection were the most common topics in the sample period, with no clear temporal trends.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2025

SoK: Measuring Blockchain Decentralization

In the context of blockchain systems, the importance of decentralization is undermined by the lack of a widely accepted methodology to measure it. To address this gap, we set out a systematization effort targeting the decentralization measurement workflow. To facilitate our systematization, we put forth a framework that categorizes all measurement techniques used in previous work based on the resource they target, the methods they use to extract resource allocation, and the functions they apply to produce the final measurements. We complement this framework with an empirical analysis designed to evaluate whether the various pre-processing steps and metrics used in prior work capture the same underlying concept of decentralization. Our analysis brings about a number of novel insights and observations. First, the seemingly innocuous choices performed during data extraction, such as the size of estimation windows or the application of thresholds that affect the resource distribution, have important repercussions when calculating the level of decentralization. Second, exploratory factor analysis suggests that in Proof-of-Work (PoW) blockchains, participation on the consensus layer is not correlated with decentralization, but rather captures a distinct signal, unlike in Proof-of-Stake (PoS) systems, where the different metrics align under a single factor. These findings challenge the long-held assumption within the blockchain community that higher participation drives higher decentralization. Finally, we combine the results of our empirical analysis with first-principles reasoning to derive practical recommendations for researchers that set out to measure blockchain decentralization, and we further systematize the existing literature in line with these recommendations.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2024

Statistical Confidence in Mining Power Estimates for PoW Blockchains

The security of blockchain systems depends on the distribution of mining power across participants. If sufficient mining power is controlled by one entity, they can force their own version of events. This may allow them to double spend coins, for example. For Proof of Work (PoW) blockchains, however, the distribution of mining power cannot be read directly from the blockchain and must instead be inferred from the number of blocks mined in a specific sample window. We introduce a framework to quantify this statistical uncertainty for the Nakamoto coefficient, which is a commonly-used measure of blockchain decentralization. We show that aggregating blocks over a day can lead to considerable uncertainty, with Bitcoin failing more than half the hypothesis tests (α = 0.05) when using a daily granularity. For these reasons, we recommend that blocks are aggregated over a sample window of at least 7 days. Instead of reporting a single value, our approach produces a range of possible Nakamoto coefficient values that have statistical support at a particular significance level α.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2021

Conflicting Privacy Preference Signals in the Wild

Privacy preference signals allow users to express preferences over how their personal data is processed. These signals become important in determining privacy outcomes when they reference an enforceable legal basis, as is the case with recent signals such as the Global Privacy Control and the Transparency & Consent Framework. However, the coexistence of multiple privacy preference signals creates ambiguity as users may transmit more than one signal. This paper collects evidence about ambiguity flowing from the aforementioned two signals and the historic Do Not Track signal. We provide the first empirical evidence that ambiguous signals are sent by web users in the wild. We also show that preferences stored in the browser are reliable predictors of privacy preferences expressed in web dialogs. Finally, we provide the first evidence that popular cookie dialogs are blocked by the majority of users who adopted the Do Not Track and Global Privacy Control standards. These empirical results inform forthcoming legal debates about how to interpret privacy preference signals.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2021

Privacy Preference Signals: Past, Present and Future

Privacy preference signals are digital representations of how users want their personal data to be processed. Such signals must be adopted by both the sender (users) and intended recipients (data processors). Adoption represents a coordination problem that remains unsolved despite efforts dating back to the 1990s. Browsers implemented standards like the Platform for Privacy Preferences (P3P) and Do Not Track (DNT), but vendors profiting from personal data faced few incentives to receive and respect the expressed wishes of data subjects. In the wake of recent privacy laws, a coalition of AdTech firms published the Transparency and Consent Framework (TCF), which defines an opt-in consent signal. This paper integrates post-GDPR developments into the wider history of privacy preference signals. Our main contribution is a high-frequency longitudinal study describing how TCF signal gained dominance as of February 2021. We explore which factors correlate with adoption at the website level. Both the number of third parties on a website and the presence of Google Ads are associated with higher adoption of TCF. Further, we show that vendors acted as early adopters of TCF 2.0 and provide two case-studies describing how Consent Management Providers shifted existing customers to TCF 2.0. We sketch ways forward for a pro-privacy signal.

cs.HC↗