Samantha Katcher
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Samantha Katcher has a total of 4 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Daniel Votipka
Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA
2 shared publications - James Mattei
Department of Computer Science, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, USA
2 shared publications - Jared Chandler
Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA
1 shared publication - Madeline R. McLaughlin
Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 25 April 2025
- Published by Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
- p. 1-21
An Investigation of Interaction and Information Needs for Protocol Reverse Engineering Automation
- 25 April 2025
- Published by Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
- p. 1-21
Open AccessAn Investigation of Interaction and Information Needs for Protocol Reverse Engineering Automation
- Open Access
- 5 December 2022
- Published by Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
- p. 619-631
A Qualitative Evaluation of Reverse Engineering Tool Usability
Software reverse engineering is a challenging and time consuming task. With the growing demand for reverse engineering in vulnerability discovery and malware analysis, manual reverse engineering cannot scale to meet the demand. There has been significant effort to develop automated tooling to support reverse engineers, but many reverse engineers report not using these tools. In this paper, we seek to understand whether this lack of use is an issue of usability. We performed a iterative open coding of 288 reverse engineering tools to identify common input and output methods, as well as whether the tools adhered to usability guidelines established in prior work. We found that most reverse engineering tools have limited interaction and usability support. However, usability issues vary between dynamic and static tools. Dynamic tools were less likely to provide easy-to-use interfaces, while static tools often did not allow reverse engineers to adjust the analysis. Based on our findings, we give recommendations for reverse engineering framework developers and suggest directions for future HCI research in reverse engineering.
- 5 December 2022
- Published by Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
- p. 619-631
Open AccessA Qualitative Evaluation of Reverse Engineering Tool Usability
Software reverse engineering is a challenging and time consuming task. With the growing demand for reverse engineering in vulnerability discovery and malware analysis, manual reverse engineering cannot scale to meet the demand. There has been significant effort to develop automated tooling to support reverse engineers, but many reverse engineers report not using these tools. In this paper, we seek to understand whether this lack of use is an issue of usability. We performed a iterative open coding of 288 reverse engineering tools to identify common input and output methods, as well as whether the tools adhered to usability guidelines established in prior work. We found that most reverse engineering tools have limited interaction and usability support. However, usability issues vary between dynamic and static tools. Dynamic tools were less likely to provide easy-to-use interfaces, while static tools often did not allow reverse engineers to adjust the analysis. Based on our findings, we give recommendations for reverse engineering framework developers and suggest directions for future HCI research in reverse engineering.