The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
Abstract
We are pleased to present herein the proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS 2015), held in Denver, Colorado, USA, October 12-16, 2015. We received 660 submissions (not including some initial withdrawals). This is the largest number of submissions received to date by a computer security conference. A Program Committee comprising 120 experts from 20 countries, helped by 338 external reviewers, evaluated these submissions, employing the customary double-blind review procedure. The review process resulted in 128 papers being accepted to the program (with authors from 19 countries), representing an acceptance rate of about 19.4% and providing a very broad coverage of the entire information security area. The review process was organized in three phases. After a first review phase, the authors of each paper were sent at least two preliminary reviews (the vast majority of papers, in fact, got three reviews). Authors were given an opportunity to respond to the comments received. During the second phase, reviews were updated as necessary, and, in some cases, additional reviews were solicited. The first and third phases included comprehensive discussions, and after an intensive final debate, the acceptance decisions were made. This year, we introduced a rebuttal task force, whose 15 members were selected from the Program Committee. The goal of this task force was to go over all the authors' responses (rebuttals) received in the second phase and to ensure that the reviewers properly addressed all valid concerns that the authors had raised. We hope that most authors benefitted from the feedback received from the CCS reviewers, and that the review process has helped them improve their papers (while we are also aware that due to the short reviewing time, at a conference of CCS scale it is unavoidable that a handful of reviews may be possibly lacking in some respect).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Deep Models Under the GAN: Information Leakage from Collaborative Deep Learning
Hitaj, B., Ateniese, G., & Perez-Cruz, F. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security · doi:10.1145/3133956.3134012 · Cited by 1,377
Federated learning on non-IID data: A survey
Zhu, H., Xu, J., Liu, S., & Jin, Y. (2021) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2021.07.098 · Cited by 1,062
Secure Multi-Party Computation: Theory, practice and applications
Zhao, C., Zhao, S., Zhao, M., Chen, Z., Gao, C.-Z., Li, H., & Tan, Y.-A. (2019) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2018.10.024 · Cited by 508
Li, X., Gu, Y., Dvornek, N., Staib, L. H., Ventola, P., & Duncan, J. S. (2020) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2020.101765 · Cited by 480
Multi-key privacy-preserving deep learning in cloud computing
Li, P., Li, J., Huang, Z., Li, T., Gao, C.-Z., Yiu, S.-M., & Chen, K. (2017) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2017.02.006 · Cited by 462
Metadata
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2015-10-12
- OpenAlex
- W4232172926
- Cited by
- 476
- References
- 0
- Type
- paratext
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/2810103
- The paper
- Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2810103
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.