The 21st ACM ASIA Conference on Computer and Communications Security (ACM ASIACCS 2026) seeks paper submissions presenting novel contributions related to all real-world aspects of security and privacy. We seek articles presenting accessible and compelling results to general computer security researchers. Purely theoretical (e.g., cryptography-focused, with no security/application connections) submissions are not encouraged. The same applies for submissions focusing primarily on blockchains or machine learning.

As in previous years, we will also be accepting “Systemisation of Knowledge” (SoK) papers. SoK submissions need to add the prefix “SoK” in the title and a checkbox on the submission form. They will be accepted based on the value to the community. Survey papers without insights evaluating, systematizing and contextualizing current knowledge will be rejected.

Paper Formatting

Technical papers submitted for ASIACCS must be written in English. Papers must be in PDF format in double-column format ACM format using the latest ACM Sigconf style conference template (available here). Papers must be no more than 12 pages in length, excluding the bibliography and any well-marked appendices. Up to 10 additional pages are allowed for the bibliography and appendices, but note that reviewers are not required to read appendices. Authors should not change the font or the margins of the ACM format. The CCS information such as concepts, keywords, or rights management information (e.g., DOI and ISBN) must be retained. Titles of SoK papers must begin with “SoK:”. Submissions not meeting these requirements risk rejection without consideration of their merits.

Tracks and Track Chairs (New!)

In order to address the growing number of submissions to ASIACCS, the 2026 edition will introduce tracks and track chairs. At the time of submission, authors must select one track, which should be the most relevant to the topic of the paper. The Program Chairs may decide to move a paper to another track. PC members will typically provide reviews within a single track but may be asked to review papers from other tracks in order to provide the best possible reviews to authors. Track Chairs will be responsible for managing the papers within their track, ensuring reviews are completed in a timely manner, that rebuttals are heeded by reviewers, and that discussion takes place amongst reviewers. They will make recommendations concerning acceptance or rejection of papers in their tracks, but final decisions rest with the Program Chairs, who may use additional criteria such as program balance and cross-comparison across tracks when making final decisions. 

Conflicts of Interest

The conference requires cooperation from both authors and program-committee members to ensure a fair review process. For this purpose, authors must report all program-committee members who, in their opinion, have a conflict of interest and therefore may not be able to provide an unbiased review. Mandatory declared conflicts of interest include current or former doctoral advisor/advisee, members of the same institution, close family members, on-going research collaborators and recent co-authors (within the past 2 years). For any other declared conflict, authors are required to explain the nature of the conflict at the time of paper submission. These will be reviewed by the Program Chairs and the Track Chairs. The chairs reserve the right to request further explanation and can remove non-mandatory conflicts at their discretion.

Track Chairs are allowed to submit papers, and those papers will be handled by the Program Chairs. They are only allowed to submit two papers in their own track, and any number in other tracks.

Program-committee members who have a genuine conflict of interest with a paper, including the Program Chairs and the Track Chairs, will be excluded from evaluation and discussion of that paper. When a Track Chair has a conflict, the paper will be handled by the Program Chairs or by another Track Chair. When a Program Chair is conflicted, the other Co-Chair will be responsible for managing that paper. When both Program Chairs are in conflict, a committee member will be appointed to handle the paper. Program Chairs are not allowed to be authors or co-authors of any submissions.

Anonymous Submissions

ASIACCS employs a double-blind reviewing process. All submissions should be appropriately anonymized. Author names and affiliations should not appear in the paper. The authors should avoid obvious self-references and should appropriately blind them if used. The list of authors cannot be changed (but the order can be) after the submission is made unless approved by the Program Chairs. Publishing the submission on a preprint repository, such as arXiv, is allowed but authors should refrain from broadly advertising their results (e.g., social media, seminars, etc.) and must not contact TPC members regarding their submitted work.

Providing Artifacts at Submission Time (New)

Submissions whose claimed contributions rely on artifacts (e.g., code, models, data sets) are expected to make these accessible to the reviewers, unless there are good reasons not to, in which case these reasons must be mentioned in the submission. Submissions whose claimed contributions do not rely on artifacts do not need to submit artifacts. An anonymous link to a resource on the web is acceptable, provided the contents in the resource are also anonymized. ASIACCS 2026 will not have an artefact evaluation process.

Double and Concurrent Submissions

Submissions to ASIACCS 2026 must not substantially overlap with papers that are published or simultaneously submitted to other venues with proceedings (including journals or conferences/workshops). Double submission will result in immediate rejection. We may report detected violations to other conference chairs and journal editors.

Ethical Considerations

The authors should clarify any potential ethical and legal concerns to their results, highly critical vulnerabilities or exploits, etc. The authors should provide evidence (beyond approval of the experiment by their institution) elaborating how they have thoroughly considered such issues. The Program Committee reserves the right to reject a submission if the authors present insufficient evidence that the study has appropriately addressed ethical or relevant legal concerns.

Early Rejection and Rebuttals (New!)

Papers that receive substantially negative initial reviews will be rejected early. The authors of early-rejected papers, and only such papers, will receive a copy of their initial reviews.

Papers that are not early rejected will receive further reviews. We will endeavour to have all reviews for each submission available to the authors at the start of the rebuttal period. Rebuttals will be limited in length. Reviewers will be encouraged to update their reviews in the light of rebuttals and to interact with authors via the online review system should further questions arise post-rebuttal.

Paper Revision and Resubmission

Rejected papers in the first round cannot be resubmitted in the second round. A small number of the first round submissions may receive a Revise decision, rather than Accept or Reject and may be revised and resubmitted together with a response to reviewers’ comments to the same submission server during  the second round review phase. The revision requirements may include running additional experiments, improving the paper’s presentation, or other improvements. Papers meeting the set requirements will typically be accepted. We will request additional revisions only in exceptional circumstances.

Camera-Ready and Conference Presentation

If a paper is accepted, the author list in the submission cannot be changed when preparing the camera-ready version. Authors of accepted papers must also guarantee that their papers will be presented at the conference. At least one paper author must register for each accepted paper at the appropriate full conference rate.