Maxime Méré, Frédéric Jouault, Loïc Pallardy, Richard Perdriau
{"title":"评估工业环境中的形式模型验证工具:智能设备生命周期管理系统案例","authors":"Maxime Méré, Frédéric Jouault, Loïc Pallardy, Richard Perdriau","doi":"10.1007/s10270-024-01201-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The formal verification of the properties of semi-formal models can make it easier to ensure their security and safety. However, this task is generally cumbersome for non-specialists in formal verification, particularly in an industrial context. This paper introduces an evaluation of four formal verification tools on an industrial case, called a Life Cycle Management System (LCMS). This LCMS makes it possible to deploy Product-Service Systems (PSSs) to customers using Systems-on-Chip (SoC). A PSS is a business model in which products and services are tightly connected and whose objective is to optimize the use of products, with a positive environmental impact. A SoC can embed hardware security; however, a LCMS must be secure from end to end, which requires a verification not only of the used protocol (in this case, a blockchain-based protocol), but also of the whole architecture. For that purpose, semi-formal UML models of a LCMS were first specified and designed with their associated properties, then improved in order to be formally verifiable. Despite being more complex, they remain capable of being processed by dedicated tools. In this paper, Verifpal and ProVerif, two formal cryptographic protocol verifiers, are used and evaluated for the cryptographic protocol and AnimUML (developed by one of the authors) and HugoRT, two verification tools for behavior and UML for the architectural model are evaluated. These tools are assessed and compared according to their coverage of properties and state spaces, limitations, and usability for non-specialists. Some limitations of the approach itself are also provided.</p>","PeriodicalId":49507,"journal":{"name":"Software and Systems Modeling","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating formal model verification tools in an industrial context: the case of a smart device life cycle management system\",\"authors\":\"Maxime Méré, Frédéric Jouault, Loïc Pallardy, Richard Perdriau\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10270-024-01201-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The formal verification of the properties of semi-formal models can make it easier to ensure their security and safety. However, this task is generally cumbersome for non-specialists in formal verification, particularly in an industrial context. This paper introduces an evaluation of four formal verification tools on an industrial case, called a Life Cycle Management System (LCMS). This LCMS makes it possible to deploy Product-Service Systems (PSSs) to customers using Systems-on-Chip (SoC). A PSS is a business model in which products and services are tightly connected and whose objective is to optimize the use of products, with a positive environmental impact. A SoC can embed hardware security; however, a LCMS must be secure from end to end, which requires a verification not only of the used protocol (in this case, a blockchain-based protocol), but also of the whole architecture. For that purpose, semi-formal UML models of a LCMS were first specified and designed with their associated properties, then improved in order to be formally verifiable. Despite being more complex, they remain capable of being processed by dedicated tools. In this paper, Verifpal and ProVerif, two formal cryptographic protocol verifiers, are used and evaluated for the cryptographic protocol and AnimUML (developed by one of the authors) and HugoRT, two verification tools for behavior and UML for the architectural model are evaluated. These tools are assessed and compared according to their coverage of properties and state spaces, limitations, and usability for non-specialists. Some limitations of the approach itself are also provided.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49507,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Software and Systems Modeling\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Software and Systems Modeling\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-024-01201-0\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"计算机科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Software and Systems Modeling","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-024-01201-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluating formal model verification tools in an industrial context: the case of a smart device life cycle management system
The formal verification of the properties of semi-formal models can make it easier to ensure their security and safety. However, this task is generally cumbersome for non-specialists in formal verification, particularly in an industrial context. This paper introduces an evaluation of four formal verification tools on an industrial case, called a Life Cycle Management System (LCMS). This LCMS makes it possible to deploy Product-Service Systems (PSSs) to customers using Systems-on-Chip (SoC). A PSS is a business model in which products and services are tightly connected and whose objective is to optimize the use of products, with a positive environmental impact. A SoC can embed hardware security; however, a LCMS must be secure from end to end, which requires a verification not only of the used protocol (in this case, a blockchain-based protocol), but also of the whole architecture. For that purpose, semi-formal UML models of a LCMS were first specified and designed with their associated properties, then improved in order to be formally verifiable. Despite being more complex, they remain capable of being processed by dedicated tools. In this paper, Verifpal and ProVerif, two formal cryptographic protocol verifiers, are used and evaluated for the cryptographic protocol and AnimUML (developed by one of the authors) and HugoRT, two verification tools for behavior and UML for the architectural model are evaluated. These tools are assessed and compared according to their coverage of properties and state spaces, limitations, and usability for non-specialists. Some limitations of the approach itself are also provided.
期刊介绍:
We invite authors to submit papers that discuss and analyze research challenges and experiences pertaining to software and system modeling languages, techniques, tools, practices and other facets. The following are some of the topic areas that are of special interest, but the journal publishes on a wide range of software and systems modeling concerns:
Domain-specific models and modeling standards;
Model-based testing techniques;
Model-based simulation techniques;
Formal syntax and semantics of modeling languages such as the UML;
Rigorous model-based analysis;
Model composition, refinement and transformation;
Software Language Engineering;
Modeling Languages in Science and Engineering;
Language Adaptation and Composition;
Metamodeling techniques;
Measuring quality of models and languages;
Ontological approaches to model engineering;
Generating test and code artifacts from models;
Model synthesis;
Methodology;
Model development tool environments;
Modeling Cyberphysical Systems;
Data intensive modeling;
Derivation of explicit models from data;
Case studies and experience reports with significant modeling lessons learned;
Comparative analyses of modeling languages and techniques;
Scientific assessment of modeling practices