96 lines
6.4 KiB
Markdown
96 lines
6.4 KiB
Markdown
- 
|
||
- **Review**
|
||
- **Technical Innovation **
|
||
+ [ ] 1 - Routine work, untested technical work or impractical idea
|
||
+ [ ] 2 - Good work, not particularly novel, akin to a routine evolution of existing technologies
|
||
+ [x] 3 - Good technical work with some novel features described
|
||
+ [ ] 4 - Very innovative technical work that demonstrates clear thought leadership for HPE
|
||
+ [ ] 5 - Clearly a breakthrough with significant technical innovation
|
||
- **Business Impact**
|
||
+ [ ] 1 - Impractical idea; limited business value
|
||
+ [x] 2 - Good work, but with limited direct or indirect business value, no clear path to capture business value+
|
||
+ [ ] 3 - Moderate business impact that merits further assessment
|
||
+ [ ] 4 - Work will provide HPE with valuable and meaningful differentiation in the market
|
||
+ [ ] 5 - Clearly and significant impacts HPE’s business, opens new market opportunities
|
||
- **Clarity of Presentation**
|
||
+ [ ] 1 - Difficult to understand; confusing; incomplete description; very short
|
||
+ [ ] 2 - Hard to follow; uses unfamiliar terminology or acronyms; missing important data
|
||
+ [ ] 3 - Understandable but lacking some relevant information
|
||
+ [x] 4 - Clear and logical; some important information is missing or unclear
|
||
+ [ ] 5 - Very clearly described; logical flow; well supported with practical results and proof points
|
||
- **Overall Recommendation**
|
||
+ [ ] 1 - Reject
|
||
+ [ ] 2 - Weak Reject
|
||
+ [x] 3 - Weak Accept
|
||
+ [ ] 4 - Accept
|
||
+ [ ] 5 - Strong Accept
|
||
- **Suggested Presentation Style**
|
||
*What type of presentation do you recommend for this submission?*
|
||
+ [ ] Formal Session
|
||
+ [x] Poster Session
|
||
+ [ ] Not recommended for presentation
|
||
- **Favorite**
|
||
+ [x] No
|
||
+ [ ] Yes
|
||
- **Reviewer Confidence**
|
||
+ [ ] 1 - No confidence - I am not qualified to pass judgement on this submission
|
||
+ [ ] 2 - Low confidence - I do not have enough experience in this area to make a definitive decision on this submission
|
||
+ [x] 3 - Somewhat confident - I have a reasonable understanding of this research area
|
||
+ [ ] 4 - Confident - I have considerable confidence in my review and understanding of this work
|
||
+ [ ] 5 - Very Confident - I am confident in my review and understanding of the work
|
||
- **Comments for the Authors**
|
||
*Provide constructive comments to the author(s).*
|
||
- This is a really interesting idea. The author(s) did a great job of outlining the problem statement and the proposed solution is clearly articulated. The idea of using the IMEI/PEI to reliably validate the device is well thought out and would significantly raise the attackers difficulty level (ie. spoofing an IMEI).
|
||
- In the problem statement the author(s) call out 'technical literacy' as one of the contributing factors to these sorts of attacks - how would they author(s) propose to improve/simplify the usability or (de)registering devices, user education etc?
|
||
- Overall, great work and an idea worth exploring further.
|
||
- **Comments for the Program Committee (authors will not see these comments)**
|
||
*Provide comments to the PC (if any) that should not be shared with the author(s).*
|
||
- Well written and clearly defines both the problem and the solution.
|
||
- 
|
||
- **Review**
|
||
- **Technical Innovation **
|
||
+ [ ] 1 - Routine work, untested technical work or impractical idea
|
||
+ [ ] 2 - Good work, not particularly novel, akin to a routine evolution of existing technologies
|
||
+ [x] 3 - Good technical work with some novel features described
|
||
+ [ ] 4 - Very innovative technical work that demonstrates clear thought leadership for HPE
|
||
+ [ ] 5 - Clearly a breakthrough with significant technical innovation
|
||
- **Business Impact**
|
||
+ [ ] 1 - Impractical idea; limited business value
|
||
+ [x] 2 - Good work, but with limited direct or indirect business value, no clear path to capture business value+
|
||
+ [ ] 3 - Moderate business impact that merits further assessment
|
||
+ [ ] 4 - Work will provide HPE with valuable and meaningful differentiation in the market
|
||
+ [ ] 5 - Clearly and significant impacts HPE’s business, opens new market opportunities
|
||
- **Clarity of Presentation**
|
||
+ [ ] 1 - Difficult to understand; confusing; incomplete description; very short
|
||
+ [ ] 2 - Hard to follow; uses unfamiliar terminology or acronyms; missing important data
|
||
+ [ ] 3 - Understandable but lacking some relevant information
|
||
+ [x] 4 - Clear and logical; some important information is missing or unclear
|
||
+ [ ] 5 - Very clearly described; logical flow; well supported with practical results and proof points
|
||
- **Overall Recommendation**
|
||
+ [ ] 1 - Reject
|
||
+ [ ] 2 - Weak Reject
|
||
+ [x] 3 - Weak Accept
|
||
+ [ ] 4 - Accept
|
||
+ [ ] 5 - Strong Accept
|
||
- **Suggested Presentation Style**
|
||
*What type of presentation do you recommend for this submission?*
|
||
+ [ ] Formal Session
|
||
+ [x] Poster Session
|
||
+ [ ] Not recommended for presentation
|
||
- **Favorite**
|
||
+ [x] No
|
||
+ [ ] Yes
|
||
- **Reviewer Confidence**
|
||
+ [ ] 1 - No confidence - I am not qualified to pass judgement on this submission
|
||
+ [ ] 2 - Low confidence - I do not have enough experience in this area to make a definitive decision on this submission
|
||
+ [x] 3 - Somewhat confident - I have a reasonable understanding of this research area
|
||
+ [ ] 4 - Confident - I have considerable confidence in my review and understanding of this work
|
||
+ [ ] 5 - Very Confident - I am confident in my review and understanding of the work
|
||
- **Comments for the Authors**
|
||
*Provide constructive comments to the author(s).*
|
||
- This is a really interesting idea. The author(s) did a great job of outlining the problem statement and the proposed solution is clearly articulated. The idea of using the IMEI/PEI to reliably validate the device is well thought out and would significantly raise the attackers difficulty level (ie. spoofing an IMEI).
|
||
- In the problem statement the author(s) call out 'technical literacy' as one of the contributing factors to these sorts of attacks - how would they author(s) propose to improve/simplify the usability or (de)registering devices, user education etc?
|
||
- Overall, great work and an idea worth exploring further.
|
||
- **Comments for the Program Committee (authors will not see these comments)**
|
||
*Provide comments to the PC (if any) that should not be shared with the author(s).*
|
||
- Well written and clearly defines both the problem and the solution. |