High-level Cryptographic Abstractions

The interfaces exposed by commonly used cryptographic libraries are clumsy, complicated, and assume an understanding of cryptographic algorithms. The challenge is to design high-level abstractions that require minimum knowledge and effort to use while also allowing maximum control when needed. This paper proposes such high-level abstractions consisting of simple cryptographic primitives and full declarative configuration. These abstractions can be implemented on top of any cryptographic library in any language. We have implemented these abstractions in Python, and used them to write a wide variety of well-known security protocols, including Signal, Kerberos, and TLS. We show that programs using our abstractions are much smaller and easier to write than using low-level libraries, where size of security protocols implemented is reduced by about a third on average. We show our implementation incurs a small overhead, less than 5 microseconds for shared key operations and less than 341 microseconds (< 1%) for public key operations. We also show our abstractions are safe against main types of cryptographic misuse reported in the literature

Formal Verification of Security Protocol Implementations: A Survey

Automated formal verification of security protocols has been mostly focused on analyzing high-level abstract models which, however, are significantly different from real protocol implementations written in programming languages. Recently, some researchers have started investigating techniques that bring automated formal proofs closer to real implementations. This paper surveys these attempts, focusing on approaches that target the application code that implements protocol logic, rather than the libraries that implement cryptography. According to these approaches, libraries are assumed to correctly implement some models. The aim is to derive formal proofs that, under this assumption, give assurance about the application code that implements the protocol logic. The two main approaches of model extraction and code generation are presented, along with the main techniques adopted for each approac

Chasing diagrams in cryptography

Cryptography is a theory of secret functions. Category theory is a general theory of functions. Cryptography has reached a stage where its structures often take several pages to define, and its formulas sometimes run from page to page. Category theory has some complicated definitions as well, but one of its specialties is taming the flood of structure. Cryptography seems to be in need of high level methods, whereas category theory always needs concrete applications. So why is there no categorical cryptography? One reason may be that the foundations of modern cryptography are built from probabilistic polynomial-time Turing machines, and category theory does not have a good handle on such things. On the other hand, such foundational problems might be the very reason why cryptographic constructions often resemble low level machine programming. I present some preliminary explorations towards categorical cryptography. It turns out that some of the main security concepts are easily characterized through the categorical technique of *diagram chasing*, which was first used Lambek's seminal `Lecture Notes on Rings and Modules'.Comment: 17 pages, 4 figures; to appear in: 'Categories in Logic, Language and Physics. Festschrift on the occasion of Jim Lambek's 90th birthday', Claudia Casadio, Bob Coecke, Michael Moortgat, and Philip Scott (editors); this version: fixed typos found by kind reader

Computer-aided proofs for multiparty computation with active security

Secure multi-party computation (MPC) is a general cryptographic technique that allows distrusting parties to compute a function of their individual inputs, while only revealing the output of the function. It has found applications in areas such as auctioning, email filtering, and secure teleconference. Given its importance, it is crucial that the protocols are specified and implemented correctly. In the programming language community it has become good practice to use computer proof assistants to verify correctness proofs. In the field of cryptography, EasyCrypt is the state of the art proof assistant. It provides an embedded language for probabilistic programming, together with a specialized logic, embedded into an ambient general purpose higher-order logic. It allows us to conveniently express cryptographic properties. EasyCrypt has been used successfully on many applications, including public-key encryption, signatures, garbled circuits and differential privacy. Here we show for the first time that it can also be used to prove security of MPC against a malicious adversary. We formalize additive and replicated secret sharing schemes and apply them to Maurer's MPC protocol for secure addition and multiplication. Our method extends to general polynomial functions. We follow the insights from EasyCrypt that security proofs can be often be reduced to proofs about program equivalence, a topic that is well understood in the verification of programming languages. In particular, we show that in the passive case the non-interference-based definition is equivalent to a standard game-based security definition. For the active case we provide a new NI definition, which we call input independence

A Formalization of Polytime Functions

We present a deep embedding of Bellantoni and Cook's syntactic characterization of polytime functions. We prove formally that it is correct and complete with respect to the original characterization by Cobham that required a bound to be proved manually. Compared to the paper proof by Bellantoni and Cook, we have been careful in making our proof fully contructive so that we obtain more precise bounding polynomials and more efficient translations between the two characterizations. Another difference is that we consider functions on bitstrings instead of functions on positive integers. This latter change is motivated by the application of our formalization in the context of formal security proofs in cryptography. Based on our core formalization, we have started developing a library of polytime functions that can be reused to build more complex ones.Comment: 13 page