A Symbolic Framework to Analyse Physical Proximity in Security Protocols

For many modern applications like e.g., contactless payment, and keyless systems, ensuring physical proximity is a security goal of paramount importance. Formal methods have proved their usefulness when analysing standard security protocols. However, existing results and tools do not apply to e.g., distance bounding protocols that aims to ensure physical proximity between two entities. This is due in particular to the fact that existing models do not represent in a faithful way the locations of the participants, and the fact that transmission of messages takes time. In this paper, we propose several reduction results: when looking for an attack, it is actually sufficient to consider a simple scenario involving at most four participants located at some specific locations. These reduction results allow one to use verification tools (e.g. ProVerif, Tamarin) developed for analysing more classical security properties. As an application, we analyse several distance bounding protocols, as well as a contactless payment protocol

Principles of Security and Trust

This open access book constitutes the proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Principles of Security and Trust, POST 2019, which took place in Prague, Czech Republic, in April 2019, held as part of the European Joint Conference on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2019. The 10 papers presented in this volume were carefully reviewed and selected from 27 submissions. They deal with theoretical and foundational aspects of security and trust, including on new theoretical results, practical applications of existing foundational ideas, and innovative approaches stimulated by pressing practical problems

Protocol Analysis with Time

[EN] We present a framework suited to the analysis of cryptographic protocols that make use of time in their execution. We provide a process algebra syntax that makes time information available to processes, and a transition semantics that takes account of fundamental properties of time. Additional properties can be added by the user if desirable. This timed protocol framework can be implemented either as a simulation tool or as a symbolic analysis tool in which time references are represented by logical variables, and in which the properties of time are implemented as constraints on those time logical variables. These constraints are carried along the symbolic execution of the protocol. The satisfiability of these constraints can be evaluated as the analysis proceeds, so attacks that violate the laws of physics can be rejected as impossible. We demonstrate the feasibility of our approach by using the Maude-NPA protocol analyzer together with an SMT solver that is used to evaluate the satisfiability of timing constraints. We provide a sound and complete protocol transformation from our timed process algebra to the Maude-NPA syntax and semantics, and we prove its soundness and completeness. We then use the tool to analyze Mafia fraud and distance hijacking attacks on a suite of distance-bounding protocols.This paper was partially supported by the EU (FEDER) and the Spanish MCIU under grant RTI2018-094403-B-C32, by the Spanish Generalitat Valenciana under grant PROMETEO/2019/098 and APOSTD/2019/127, by the US Air Force Office of Scientific Research under award number FA9550-17-1-0286, and by ONR Code 311.Aparicio-Sánchez, D.; Escobar Román, S.; Meadows, C.; Meseguer, J.; Sapiña-Sanchis, J. (2020). Protocol Analysis with Time. Springer. 128-150. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65277-7_7S128150Avoine, G., et al.: A terrorist-fraud resistant and extractor-free anonymous distance-bounding protocol. In Proceedings of the Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security (AsiaCCS 2017), pp. 800–814. ACM Press (2017)Basin, D.A., Capkun, S., Schaller, P., Schmidt, B.: Formal reasoning about physical properties of security protocols. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Securi. 14(2), 16:1–16:28 (2011)Brands, S., Chaum, D.: Distance-bounding protocols. In: Helleseth, T. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1993. LNCS, vol. 765, pp. 344–359. Springer, Heidelberg (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48285-7_30Capkun, S., Buttyán, L., Hubaux, J.-P.: SECTOR: secure tracking of node encounters in multi-hop wireless networks. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM Workshop on Security of Ad Hoc and Sensor Networks (SASN 2003), pp. 21–32. Association for Computing Machinery (2003)Chothia, T., de Ruiter, J., Smyth, B.: Modelling and analysis of a hierarchy of distance bounding attacks. In: Proceedings of the 27th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 2018), pp. 1563–1580. USENIX (2018)Clavel, M., et al.: Maude Manual (Version 3.0). Technical report, SRI International Computer Science Laboratory (2020). http://maude.cs.uiuc.eduThe CVC4 SMT Solver (2020). https://cvc4.github.ioDebant, A., Delaune, S.: Symbolic verification of distance bounding protocols. In: Nielson, F., Sands, D. (eds.) POST 2019. LNCS, vol. 11426, pp. 149–174. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17138-4_7Debant, A., Delaune, S., Wiedling, C.: A symbolic framework to analyse physical proximity in security protocols. In: Proceedings of the 38th IARCS Annual Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science (FSTTCS 2018), Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), vol. 122, pp. 29:1–29:20. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2018)Escobar, S., Meadows, C., Meseguer, J., Santiago, S.: Symbolic protocol analysis with disequality constraints modulo equational theories. In: Bodei, C., Ferrari, G.-L., Priami, C. (eds.) Programming Languages with Applications to Biology and Security. LNCS, vol. 9465, pp. 238–261. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25527-9_16Hancke, G.P., Kuhn, M.G.: An RFID distance bounding protocol. In: Proceedings of the 1st IEEE International Conference on Security and Privacy for Emerging Areas in Communications Networks (SecureComm 2005), pp. 67–73. IEEE Computer Society Press (2005)Kim, C.H., Avoine, G., Koeune, F., Standaert, F.-X., Pereira, O.: The Swiss-Knife RFID distance bounding protocol. In: Lee, P.J., Cheon, J.H. (eds.) ICISC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5461, pp. 98–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00730-9_7Wolfram Mathematica (2020). https://www.wolfram.com/mathematicaMauw, S., Smith, Z., Toro-Pozo, J., Trujillo-Rasua, R.: Distance-bounding protocols: verification without time and location. In: Proceedings of the 39th IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P 2018), pp. 549–566. IEEE Computer Society Press (2018)Meadows, C., Poovendran, R., Pavlovic, D., Chang, L.W., Syverson, P.: Distance bounding protocols: authentication logic analysis and collusion attacks. In: Poovendran, R., Roy, S., Wang, C. (eds.) Secure Localization and Time Synchronization for Wireless Sensor and Ad Hoc Networks: Advances in Information Security, vol. 30, pp. 279–298. Springer, Boston (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-46276-9_12Meier, S., Schmidt, B., Cremers, C., Basin, D.: The TAMARIN prover for the symbolic analysis of security protocols. In: Sharygina, N., Veith, H. (eds.) CAV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8044, pp. 696–701. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39799-8_48Munilla, J., Peinado, A.: Distance bounding protocols for RFID enhanced by using void-challenges and analysis in noisy channels. Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput. 8(9), 1227–1232 (2008)Neumann, C., Yu, T., Hartman, S., Raeburn, K.: The Kerberos network authentication service (V5). Request Comments 4120, 1–37 (2005)Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A., Tinelli, C.: Solving SAT and SAT modulo theories: from an abstract Davis-Putnam-Logemann-Loveland procedure to DPLL(T). Commun. ACM 53(6), 937–977 (2006)Nigam, V., Talcott, C., Aires Urquiza, A.: Towards the automated verification of cyber-physical security protocols: bounding the number of timed intruders. In: Askoxylakis, I., Ioannidis, S., Katsikas, S., Meadows, C. (eds.) ESORICS 2016. LNCS, vol. 9879, pp. 450–470. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45741-3_23Nigam, V., Talcott, C., Urquiza, A.A.: Symbolic timed observational equivalence. Computing Research Repository, abs/1801.04066 (2018)Paulson, L.C.: The inductive approach to verifying cryptographic protocols. J. Comput. Secur. 6(1–2), 85–128 (1998)Perrig, A., Song, D., Canetti, R., Tygar, J.D., Briscoe, B.: Timed efficient stream loss-tolerant authentication (TESLA): multicast source authentication transform introduction. Request Comments 4082, 1–22 (2005)Rasmussen, K.B., Capkun, S.: Realization of RF distance bounding. In: Proceedings of the 19th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 2010), pp. 389–402. USENIX (2010)Thayer, F.J., Herzog, J.C., Guttman, J.D.: Strand spaces: proving security protocols correct. J. Comput. Secur. 7(1), 191–230 (1999)Yang, F., Escobar, S., Meadows, C., Meseguer, J.: Strand spaces with choice via a process algebra semantics. Computing Research Repository, abs/1904.09946 (2019)Yang, F., Escobar, S., Meadows, C., Meseguer, J., Santiago, S.: Strand spaces with choice via a process algebra semantics. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming (PPDP 2016), pp. 76–89. ACM Press (2016)The Yices SMT Solver (2020). https://yices.csl.sri.comThe Z3 SMT Solver (2020). https://github.com/Z3Prover/z