2,295 research outputs found

    Modalities, Cohesion, and Information Flow

    Get PDF
    It is informally understood that the purpose of modal type constructors in programming calculi is to control the flow of information between types. In order to lend rigorous support to this idea, we study the category of classified sets, a variant of a denotational semantics for information flow proposed by Abadi et al. We use classified sets to prove multiple noninterference theorems for modalities of a monadic and comonadic flavour. The common machinery behind our theorems stems from the the fact that classified sets are a (weak) model of Lawvere's theory of axiomatic cohesion. In the process, we show how cohesion can be used for reasoning about multi-modal settings. This leads to the conclusion that cohesion is a particularly useful setting for the study of both information flow, but also modalities in type theory and programming languages at large

    Combining behavioural types with security analysis

    Get PDF
    Today's software systems are highly distributed and interconnected, and they increasingly rely on communication to achieve their goals; due to their societal importance, security and trustworthiness are crucial aspects for the correctness of these systems. Behavioural types, which extend data types by describing also the structured behaviour of programs, are a widely studied approach to the enforcement of correctness properties in communicating systems. This paper offers a unified overview of proposals based on behavioural types which are aimed at the analysis of security properties

    Checking Interaction-Based Declassification Policies for Android Using Symbolic Execution

    Get PDF
    Mobile apps can access a wide variety of secure information, such as contacts and location. However, current mobile platforms include only coarse access control mechanisms to protect such data. In this paper, we introduce interaction-based declassification policies, in which the user's interactions with the app constrain the release of sensitive information. Our policies are defined extensionally, so as to be independent of the app's implementation, based on sequences of security-relevant events that occur in app runs. Policies use LTL formulae to precisely specify which secret inputs, read at which times, may be released. We formalize a semantic security condition, interaction-based noninterference, to define our policies precisely. Finally, we describe a prototype tool that uses symbolic execution to check interaction-based declassification policies for Android, and we show that it enforces policies correctly on a set of apps.Comment: This research was supported in part by NSF grants CNS-1064997 and 1421373, AFOSR grants FA9550-12-1-0334 and FA9550-14-1-0334, a partnership between UMIACS and the Laboratory for Telecommunication Sciences, and the National Security Agenc

    Hess Aidoo Beyond

    Get PDF

    Separation Logic for Small-step Cminor

    Get PDF
    Cminor is a mid-level imperative programming language; there are proved-correct optimizing compilers from C to Cminor and from Cminor to machine language. We have redesigned Cminor so that it is suitable for Hoare Logic reasoning and we have designed a Separation Logic for Cminor. In this paper, we give a small-step semantics (instead of the big-step of the proved-correct compiler) that is motivated by the need to support future concurrent extensions. We detail a machine-checked proof of soundness of our Separation Logic. This is the first large-scale machine-checked proof of a Separation Logic w.r.t. a small-step semantics. The work presented in this paper has been carried out in the Coq proof assistant. It is a first step towards an environment in which concurrent Cminor programs can be verified using Separation Logic and also compiled by a proved-correct compiler with formal end-to-end correctness guarantees.Comment: Version courte du rapport de recherche RR-613

    Privacy protocols

    Full text link
    Security protocols enable secure communication over insecure channels. Privacy protocols enable private interactions over secure channels. Security protocols set up secure channels using cryptographic primitives. Privacy protocols set up private channels using secure channels. But just like some security protocols can be broken without breaking the underlying cryptography, some privacy protocols can be broken without breaking the underlying security. Such privacy attacks have been used to leverage e-commerce against targeted advertising from the outset; but their depth and scope became apparent only with the overwhelming advent of influence campaigns in politics. The blurred boundaries between privacy protocols and privacy attacks present a new challenge for protocol analysis. Covert channels turn out to be concealed not only below overt channels, but also above: subversions, and the level-below attacks are supplemented by sublimations and the level-above attacks.Comment: 38 pages, 6 figure
    corecore