论协议验证中模型之间的关系(扩展版)

S. Mödersheim
{"title":"论协议验证中模型之间的关系(扩展版)","authors":"S. Mödersheim","doi":"10.3929/ETHZ-A-006775802","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We formally investigate the relationship between several models that are widely used in protocol verification, namely variants of the inductive model of message traces inspired by Paulson’s approach, and models based on rewriting. More precisely, we prove several overapproximation relationships between models, i.e. that one model allows strictly more traces or reachable states than the other. This is common in verification: often an over-approximation is easier to prove correct than the original model, and proving the over-approximation is safe implies that the original model is safe—provided that the models are indeed in an overapproximation relation. We also show that some over-approximations are not sound with respect to authentication goals. The precise formal account that we give on the relation of the models allows us to correct the situation.","PeriodicalId":10841,"journal":{"name":"CTIT technical reports series","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the relationships between models in protocol verification (extended version)\",\"authors\":\"S. Mödersheim\",\"doi\":\"10.3929/ETHZ-A-006775802\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We formally investigate the relationship between several models that are widely used in protocol verification, namely variants of the inductive model of message traces inspired by Paulson’s approach, and models based on rewriting. More precisely, we prove several overapproximation relationships between models, i.e. that one model allows strictly more traces or reachable states than the other. This is common in verification: often an over-approximation is easier to prove correct than the original model, and proving the over-approximation is safe implies that the original model is safe—provided that the models are indeed in an overapproximation relation. We also show that some over-approximations are not sound with respect to authentication goals. The precise formal account that we give on the relation of the models allows us to correct the situation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10841,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CTIT technical reports series\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CTIT technical reports series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3929/ETHZ-A-006775802\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CTIT technical reports series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3929/ETHZ-A-006775802","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们正式研究了协议验证中广泛使用的几个模型之间的关系,即受Paulson方法启发的消息跟踪归纳模型的变体,以及基于重写的模型。更准确地说,我们证明了模型之间的几个过度逼近关系,即一个模型比另一个模型允许严格更多的跟踪或可达状态。这在验证中很常见:通常过度近似比原始模型更容易证明是正确的,并且证明过度近似是安全的意味着原始模型是安全的——前提是模型确实处于过度近似关系中。我们还表明,对于身份验证目标来说,有些过度近似是不合理的。我们对模型之间的关系所作的精确的正式说明使我们能够纠正这种情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
On the relationships between models in protocol verification (extended version)
We formally investigate the relationship between several models that are widely used in protocol verification, namely variants of the inductive model of message traces inspired by Paulson’s approach, and models based on rewriting. More precisely, we prove several overapproximation relationships between models, i.e. that one model allows strictly more traces or reachable states than the other. This is common in verification: often an over-approximation is easier to prove correct than the original model, and proving the over-approximation is safe implies that the original model is safe—provided that the models are indeed in an overapproximation relation. We also show that some over-approximations are not sound with respect to authentication goals. The precise formal account that we give on the relation of the models allows us to correct the situation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Costs and Benefits of Electric Vehicles and District Cooling Systems: A case study in Singapore Towards a Digital Urban Climate Twin: Simulation-as-a-Service (SaaS) for Model Integration Microscale Assessment of the Anthropogenic Heat Mitigation Strategies Decision Support System: User research, usability analysis and computational build Analysis of climatic variables in different urban sites of Singapore and evaluation of strategies to improve the outdoor thermal environment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1