Modelling the relative strength of security protocols

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we present a way to think about the relative strength of security protocols using SoS, a lattice-theoretic representation of security strength. In particular, we discuss how the model can be used, present the TLS protocol as a compelling real world example, show how it is modeled, and then explain how lattice-theoretic properties can be used to evaluate security protocols.

REFERENCES

• 1: G. Bella. Inductive Verification of Cryptographic Protocols. PhD thesis, Clare College University of Cambridge, 2000.
• 2: Mihir Bellare , Anand Desai , David Pointcheval , Phillip Rogaway, Relations Among Notions of Security for Public-Key Encryption Schemes, Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Cryptology Conference on Advances in Cryptology, p.26-45, August 23-27, 1998
• 3: S. Bistarelli, G. Bella, and S. Foley. Soft constraints for security. In First International Workshop on Views On Designing Complex Architectures (VODCA), September 2004.
• 4: M. Burrows, M. Abadi, and R. Needham. A logic of authentication. In Proceeding of the Royal Society of London, 1989.
• 5: R. Canetti, C. Meadows, and P. Syverson. Environmental requirements for authentication protocols. In Proceeding of the International Symposium on Software Security, pages 339--355. Springer-Verlag, 2002.
• 6: H. Chung and C. Neuman. Modelling the relative strength of security protocols. Technical Report 06-882, University of Southern California, Computer Science Department, August 2006.
• 7: T. Dierks , C. Allen, The TLS Protocol Version 1.0, RFC Editor, 1999
• 8: Whitfield Diffie , Paul C. Van Oorschot , Michael J. Wiener, Authentication and authenticated key exchanges, Designs, Codes and Cryptography, v.2 n.2, p.107-125, June 1992 [doi>10.1007/BF00124891]
• 9: D. Dolev and A. C. Yao. On the security of public key protocols. In Proceeding of the IEEE 22nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 350--357, 1981.
• 10: F. T. Fábrega, J. Herzog, and J. D. Guttman. Strand spaces: Why is a security protocol correct? In Proceeding of the 16th IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1998.
• 11: D. Gollmann, What do we mean by entity authentication?, Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, p.46, May 06-08, 1996
• 12: C. He and J. Mitchell. Security analysis and improvements for IEEE 802.11i. In Proceeding of the 12th Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS'05), 2005.
• 13: K. E. Hickman. The SSL 2.0 protocol. http://wp.netscape.com/eng/security/SSL2.html, January 1995.
• 14: Charlie Kaufman , Radia Perlman , Mike Speciner, Network security: private communication in a public world, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1995
• 15: Gavin Lowe, Breaking and Fixing the Needham-Schroeder Public-Key Protocol Using FDR, Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Tools and Algorithms for Construction and Analysis of Systems, p.147-166, March 27-29, 1996
• 16: Gavin Lowe, A Hierarchy of Authentication Specifications, Proceedings of the 10th Computer Security Foundations Workshop (CSFW '97), p.31, June 10-12, 1997
• 17: C. Meadows. Formal methods for cryptographic protocol analysis: Emerging issues and trends. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communication, 21(1):44--54, January 2003.
• 18: Alfred J. Menezes , Scott A. Vanstone , Paul C. Van Oorschot, Handbook of Applied Cryptography, CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL, 1996
• 19: J. Mitchell, V. Shmatikov, and U. Stern. Finite-state analysis of SSL 3.0. In 7th USENIX Security Symposium, 1998.
• 20: Steve Schneider, Verifying authentication protocols with CSP, Proceedings of the 10th Computer Security Foundations Workshop (CSFW '97), p.3, June 10-12, 1997
• 21: D. Wagner and B. Schneier. Analysis of the SSL 3.0 protocol. In The 2nd USENIX workshop on Electronic Commerce, pages 29--40. USENIX Press, 1996.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.1 MODELS AND PRINCIPLES

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.4 OPERATING SYSTEMS
      D.4.8 Performance
          Subjects: Modeling and prediction; Measurements

General Terms:
Security

Keywords:
comparison, cryptographic protocols, lattice, relative strength