CCS Topic Selection
Use this before writing. ACM CCS is the SIGSAC flagship: it rewards work with a concrete
attacker, a defensible threat model, and evidence that survives an adversarial program
committee. Decide venue by community and contribution type, never by prestige ranking.
Fit test
- Prefer CCS when the contribution is a broad computer-security result — a new attack class,
a defense with measured cost, an applied-cryptography protocol, a systems or web-security
mechanism, or a measurement study — aimed at the cross-area SIGSAC community.
- Route to IEEE S&P (Oakland) when the work suits that PC's taste for foundational or
systematization framing and the November cycle fits your calendar better.
- Route to USENIX Security when the contribution is artifact-heavy systems security whose
evidence lives in a runnable tool and open benchmark.
- Route to NDSS when the core is network- and distributed-system security (protocols, DNS,
routing, malware infrastructure).
- Route to PETS/PoPETs when privacy is the primary lens rather than one property among many.
- Route to CRYPTO/EUROCRYPT when the contribution is cryptographic theory whose proof, not
its deployment, is the result.
Fit signal table
| Signal in the project |
CCS reading |
| New attack with a clearly bounded adversary and demonstrated impact |
Core fit — the house genre |
| Defense evaluated against adaptive attacks with deployment cost |
Core fit |
| Applied crypto protocol with implementation and measured overhead |
Core fit |
| Internet-scale or ecosystem measurement with validated sampling |
Core fit |
| Pure cryptographic hardness proof, no system |
CRYPTO/EUROCRYPT or a theory venue |
| Privacy-first metrics with no other security property |
PETS/PoPETs |
Vignette: where a side-channel result goes
A project extracts keys from a deployed TLS library via a microarchitectural side channel,
with a proof-of-concept exploit and a constant-time patch. CCS reading: strong fit — a
concrete attacker, measured leakage, and a defense with overhead numbers is exactly the CCS
arc. Strip the exploit and keep only an abstract leakage bound, and it drifts toward a crypto
theory venue; expand the network-measurement of vulnerable hosts into the whole story, and
NDSS becomes plausible; foreground only the privacy harm to users, and PETS fits better.
Sharpening moves before committing
- Name the attacker: capabilities, knowledge, position, and what success means. If you cannot
write the threat model in three sentences, the contribution is not yet CCS-shaped.
- Decide the contribution type — attack, defense, protocol, measurement, tool, or study —
because reviewers grade each against a different evidence bar.
- Confirm the result fits the 12-page ACM sigconf body; CCS bodies are dense, and a paper
needing 30 pages of proofs may belong at a journal or a theory venue.
- Scope drifts across cycles; scan the current CFP topic list and recent proceedings before
final routing.
Output format
[Fit] strong CCS / possible CCS / better elsewhere
[Best venue] CCS / IEEE S&P / USENIX Security / NDSS / PETS / crypto venue / other
[Contribution type] attack / defense / protocol / measurement / tool / study
[Threat model in one line] <adversary capability and goal>
[Top rejection risk] <threat-model / novelty / evidence / ethics / scope>
[Next action] <sharpen threat model, add evidence, reframe, or switch venue>
1---2name: ccs-topic-selection3description: Use when deciding whether a security project fits ACM CCS versus IEEE S&P, USENIX Security, NDSS, PETS, or a crypto/theory venue, identifying the security contribution type, and sharpening the threat model and attacker capability before writing begins.4---56# CCS Topic Selection78Use this before writing. ACM CCS is the SIGSAC flagship: it rewards work with a concrete9attacker, a defensible threat model, and evidence that survives an adversarial program10committee. Decide venue by community and contribution type, never by prestige ranking.1112## Fit test1314- Prefer CCS when the contribution is a broad computer-security result — a new attack class,15 a defense with measured cost, an applied-cryptography protocol, a systems or web-security16 mechanism, or a measurement study — aimed at the cross-area SIGSAC community.17- Route to IEEE S&P (Oakland) when the work suits that PC's taste for foundational or18 systematization framing and the November cycle fits your calendar better.19- Route to USENIX Security when the contribution is artifact-heavy systems security whose20 evidence lives in a runnable tool and open benchmark.21- Route to NDSS when the core is network- and distributed-system security (protocols, DNS,22 routing, malware infrastructure).23- Route to PETS/PoPETs when privacy is the primary lens rather than one property among many.24- Route to CRYPTO/EUROCRYPT when the contribution is cryptographic theory whose proof, not25 its deployment, is the result.2627## Fit signal table2829| Signal in the project | CCS reading |30|---|---|31| New attack with a clearly bounded adversary and demonstrated impact | Core fit — the house genre |32| Defense evaluated against adaptive attacks with deployment cost | Core fit |33| Applied crypto protocol with implementation and measured overhead | Core fit |34| Internet-scale or ecosystem measurement with validated sampling | Core fit |35| Pure cryptographic hardness proof, no system | CRYPTO/EUROCRYPT or a theory venue |36| Privacy-first metrics with no other security property | PETS/PoPETs |3738## Vignette: where a side-channel result goes3940A project extracts keys from a deployed TLS library via a microarchitectural side channel,41with a proof-of-concept exploit and a constant-time patch. CCS reading: strong fit — a42concrete attacker, measured leakage, and a defense with overhead numbers is exactly the CCS43arc. Strip the exploit and keep only an abstract leakage bound, and it drifts toward a crypto44theory venue; expand the network-measurement of vulnerable hosts into the whole story, and45NDSS becomes plausible; foreground only the privacy harm to users, and PETS fits better.4647## Sharpening moves before committing4849- Name the attacker: capabilities, knowledge, position, and what success means. If you cannot50 write the threat model in three sentences, the contribution is not yet CCS-shaped.51- Decide the contribution type — attack, defense, protocol, measurement, tool, or study —52 because reviewers grade each against a different evidence bar.53- Confirm the result fits the 12-page ACM sigconf body; CCS bodies are dense, and a paper54 needing 30 pages of proofs may belong at a journal or a theory venue.55- Scope drifts across cycles; scan the current CFP topic list and recent proceedings before56 final routing.5758## Output format5960```text61[Fit] strong CCS / possible CCS / better elsewhere62[Best venue] CCS / IEEE S&P / USENIX Security / NDSS / PETS / crypto venue / other63[Contribution type] attack / defense / protocol / measurement / tool / study64[Threat model in one line] <adversary capability and goal>65[Top rejection risk] <threat-model / novelty / evidence / ethics / scope>66[Next action] <sharpen threat model, add evidence, reframe, or switch venue>67```
brycewang-stanford