ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Minimal backups of cryptographic protocol runs
Full text PdfPdf (470 KB)
Source
Conference on Computer and Communications Security archive
Proceedings of the 6th ACM workshop on Formal methods in security engineering table of contents
Alexandria, Virginia, USA
Pages 11-20  
Year of Publication: 2008
ISBN:978-1-60558-288-7
Authors
Jay A. McCarthy  Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA
Shriram Krishnamurthi  Brown University, Providence, RI, USA
Sponsors
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
SIGSAC: ACM Special Interest Group on Security, Audit, and Control
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 2,   Downloads (12 Months): 38,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1456396.1456398
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

As cryptographic protocols execute they accumulate information such as values and keys, and evidence of properties about this information. As execution proceeds, new information becomes relevant while some old information ceases to be of use. Identifying what information is necessary at each point in a protocol run is valuable for both analysis and deployment.

We formalize this necessary information as the minimal backup of a protocol. We present an analysis that determines the minimal backup at each point in a protocol run. We show that this minimal backup has many uses: it serves as a foundation for job-migration and other kinds of fault-tolerance, and also assists protocol designers understand the structure of protocols and identify potential flaws.

In a cryptographic context it is dangerous to reason informally. We have therefore formalized and verified this work using the Coq proof assistant. Additionally, Coq provides a certified implementation of our analysis. Concretely, our analysis and its implementation consume protocols written in a variant of the Cryptographic Protocol Programming Language, CPPL.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
M. Burrows, M. Abadi, and R. Needham. A logic of authentication. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series A, 426(1871):233--271, December 1989.
2
 
3
D. Dolev and A. Yao. On the security of public-key protocols. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 29:198--208, 1983.
 
4
 
5
L. Gong. Increasing availability and security of an authentication service. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 11(5):657--662, 1993.
 
6
J. D. Guttman, J. C. Herzog, J. D. Ramsdell, and B. T. Sniffen. Programming cryptographic protocols. In Trust in Global Computing, 2005.
 
7
 
8
J. D. Guttman, F. J. Thayer, J. A. Carlson, J. C. Herzog, J. D. Ramsdell, and B. T. Sniffen. Trust management in strand spaces: A rely-guarantee method. In European Symposium on Programming, 2004.
9
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
G. Lowe. A family of attacks upon authentication protocols. Department of Mathematics and Computer Science 5, University of Leicester, 1997.
 
14
M. Marwah, S. Mishra, and C. Fetzer. Tcp server fault tolerance using connection migration to a backup server. In Dependable Systems and Networks, 2003.
 
15
Project EVA. Security protocols open repository. http://www.lsv.ens-cachan.fr/spore/, 2007.
16
17
18
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
F. J. Thayer Fábrega, J. C. Herzog, and J. D. Guttman. Strand spaces: Why is a security protocol correct? In 1998 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE Computer Society Press, May 1998.
 
23
The Coq development team. The Coq proof assistant reference manual, 8.1 edition, 2007.
 
24
D. Williams and H. Lutfiyya. Fault-tolerant authentication services. International Journal of Computers and Applications, 2007.

Collaborative Colleagues:
Jay A. McCarthy: colleagues
Shriram Krishnamurthi: colleagues