A framework for proving the correctness of cryptographic protocol properties by linear temporal logic

In this paper, a framework for cryptographic protocol analysis using linear temporal logic is proposed. The framework can be used to specify and analyse security protocols. It aims to investigate and analyse the security protocols properties that are secure or have any flaws. The framework extends the linear temporal logic by including the knowledge of participants in each status that may change over the time. It includes two main parts, the Language of Temporal Logic (LTL) and the domain knowledge. The ability of the framework is demonstrated by analysing the Needham-Schroeder public key protocol and the Andrew Secure RPC protocol as examples

A Temporal Logic for Hyperproperties

Hyperproperties, as introduced by Clarkson and Schneider, characterize the correctness of a computer program as a condition on its set of computation paths. Standard temporal logics can only refer to a single path at a time, and therefore cannot express many hyperproperties of interest, including noninterference and other important properties in security and coding theory. In this paper, we investigate an extension of temporal logic with explicit path variables. We show that the quantification over paths naturally subsumes other extensions of temporal logic with operators for information flow and knowledge. The model checking problem for temporal logic with path quantification is decidable. For alternation depth 1, the complexity is PSPACE in the length of the formula and NLOGSPACE in the size of the system, as for linear-time temporal logic

A Logic for Constraint-based Security Protocol Analysis

We propose PS-LTL, a pure-past security linear temporal logic that allows the specification of a variety of authentication, secrecy and data freshness properties. Furthermore, we present a sound and complete decision procedure to establish the validity of security properties for symbolic execution traces, and show the integration with constraint-based analysis techniques

Modelling and Verification of Multiple UAV Mission Using SMV

Model checking has been used to verify the correctness of digital circuits, security protocols, communication protocols, as they can be modelled by means of finite state transition model. However, modelling the behaviour of hybrid systems like UAVs in a Kripke model is challenging. This work is aimed at capturing the behaviour of an UAV performing cooperative search mission into a Kripke model, so as to verify it against the temporal properties expressed in Computation Tree Logic (CTL). SMV model checker is used for the purpose of model checking

Property specification and static verification of UML models

We present a static verification tool (SVT), a system that performs static verification on UML models composed of UML class and state machine diagrams. Additionally, the SVT allows the user to add extra behavior specification in the form of guards and effects by defining a small action language. UML models are checked against properties written in a special-purpose property language that allows the user to specify linear temporal logic formulas that explicitly reason about UML components. Thus, the SVT provides a strong foundation for the design of reliable systems and a step towards model-driven security

PS-LTL for constraint-based security protocol analysis

Several formal approaches have been proposed to analyse security protocols, e.g. [2,7,11,1,6,12]. Recently, a great interest has been growing on the use of constraint solving approach. Initially proposed by Millen and Shmatikov [9], this approach allows analysis of a finite number of protocol sessions. Yet, the representation of protocol runs by symbolic traces (as opposed to concrete traces) captures the possibility of having unbounded message space, allowing analysis over an infinite state space. A constraint is defined as a pair consisting of a message M and a set of messages K that represents the intruder¿s knowledge. Millen and Shmatikov present a procedure to solve a set of constraints, i.e. that in each constraint, M can be built from K. When a set of constraints is solved, then a concrete trace representing an attack over the protocol can be extracted. \ud Corin and Etalle [4] has improved the work of Millen and Shmatikov by presenting a more efficient procedure. However, none of these constraint-based systems provide enough flexibility and expresiveness in specifying security properties. For example, to check secrecy an artificial protocol role is added to simulate whether a secret can be learned by an intruder. Authentication cannot also be checked directly. Moreover, only a built-in notion of authentication is implemented by Millen and Shmatikov in his Prolog implementation [10]. This problem motivates our current work. \ud A logical formalism is considered to be an appropriate solution to improve the flexibility and expresiveness in specifying security properties. A preliminary attempt to use logic for specifying local security properties in a constraint-based setting has been carried out [3]. Inspired by this work and the successful NPATRL [11,8], we currently explores a variant of linear temporal logic (LTL) over finite traces, -LTL, standing for pure-past security LTL [5]. In contrast to standard LTL, this logic deals only with past events in a trace. In our current work, a protocol is modelled as in previous works [9,4,3], viz. by protocol roles. A protocol role is a sequence of send and receive events, together with status events to indicate, e.g. that a protocol role has completed her protocol run. A scenario is then used to deal with the number of sessions and protocol roles considered in the analysis. \ud Integrating -LTL into our constraint solving approach presents a challenge, since we need to develop a sound and complete decision procedure against symbolic traces, instead of concrete traces. Our idea to address this problem is by concretizing symbolic traces incrementally while deciding a formula. Basically, the decision procedure consists of two steps: transform and decide. The former step transforms a -LTL formula with respect to the current trace into a so-called elementary formula that is built from constraints and equalities using logical connectives and quantifiers. The decision is then performed by the latter step through solving the constraints and checking the equalities. \ud Although we define a decision procedure for a fragment of -LTL, this fragment is expressive enough to specify several security properties, like various notions of secrecy and authentication, and also data freshness. We provide a Prolog implementation and have analysed several security protocols. \ud There are many directions for improvement. From the implementation point of view, the efficiency of the decision procedure can still be improved. I would also like to investigate the expressiveness of the logic for speficying other security properties. This may result in an extension of the decision procedure for a larger fragment of the logic. Another direction is to characterize the expressivity power of -LTL compared to other security requirement languages

Relating Strand Spaces and Distributed Temporal Logic for Security Protocol Analysis

In previous work, we introduced a version of distributed temporal logic that is well-suited both for verifying security protocols and as a metalogic for reasoning about, and relating, different security protocol models. In this paper, we formally investigate the relationship between our approach and strand spaces, which is one of the most successful and widespread formalisms for analyzing security protocols. We define translations between models in our logic and strand-space models of security protocols, and we compare the results obtained with respect to the level of abstraction that is inherent in each of the formalisms. This allows us to clarify different aspects of strand spaces that are often left implicit, as well as pave the way to transfer results, techniques and tools across the two approache

A Formal Framework for Concrete Reputation Systems

In a reputation-based trust-management system, agents maintain information about the past behaviour of other agents. This information is used to guide future trust-based decisions about interaction. However, while trust management is a component in security decision-making, many existing reputation-based trust-management systems provide no formal security-guarantees. In this extended abstract, we describe a mathematical framework for a class of simple reputation-based systems. In these systems, decisions about interaction are taken based on policies that are exact requirements on agents’ past histories. We present a basic declarative language, based on pure-past linear temporal logic, intended for writing simple policies. While the basic language is reasonably expressive (encoding e.g. Chinese Wall policies) we show how one can extend it with quantification and parameterized events. This allows us to encode other policies known from the literature, e.g., ‘one-out-of-k’. The problem of checking a history with respect to a policy is efficient for the basic language, and tractable for the quantified language when policies do not have too many variables

Monitoring temporal information flow

We present a framework for monitoring information flow in security-critical reactive systems, such as communication protocols, cell phone apps, document servers and web browsers. The secrecy requirements in such systems typically vary over time in response to the interaction with the environment. Standard notions of secrecy, like noninterference, must therefore be extended by specifying precisely when and under what conditions a particular event needs to remain secret. Our framework is based on the temporal logic SecLTL, which combines the standard temporal operators of linear-time temporal logic with the modal Hide operator for the specification of information flow properties. We present a first monitoring algorithm for SecLTL specifications, based on a translation of SecLTL formulas to alternating automata, and identify open research questions and directions for future work