Assumptions and guarantees for compositional noninterference

The idea of building secure systems by plugging together "secure" components is appealing, but this requires a definition of security which, in addition to taking care of top-level security goals, is strengthened appropriately in order to be compositional. This approach has been previously studied for information-flow security of shared-variable concurrent programs, but the price for compositionality is very high: a thread must be extremely pessimistic about what an environment might do with shared resources. This pessimism leads to many intuitively secure threads being labelled as insecure. Since in practice it is only meaningful to compose threads which follow an agreed protocol for data access, we take advantage of this to develop a more liberal compositional security condition. The idea is to give the security definition access to the intended pattern of data usage, as expressed by assumption-guarantee style conditions associated with each thread. We illustrate the improved precision by developing the first flow-sensitive security type system that provably enforces a noninterference-like property for concurrent programs. \ua9 2011 IEEE

Just forget it - The semantics and enforcement of information erasure

Abstract. There are many settings in which sensitive information is made available to a system or organisation for a specific purpose, on the understanding that it will be erased once that purpose has been fulfilled. A familiar example is that of online credit card transactions: a customer typically provides credit card details to a payment system on the understanding that the following promises are kept: (i) Noninterference (NI): the card details may flow to the bank (in order that the payment can be authorised) but not to other users of the system; (ii) Erasure: the payment system will not retain any record of the card details once the transaction is complete. This example shows that we need to reason about NI and erasure in combination, and that we need to consider interactive systems: the card details are used in the interaction between the principals, and then erased; without the interaction, the card details could be dispensed with altogether and erasure would be unnecessary. The contributions of this paper are as follows. (i) We show that an end-to-end erasure property can be encoded as a “flow sensitive ” noninterference property. (ii) By a judicious choice of language construct to support erasur

Compositional closure for Bayes Risk in probabilistic noninterference

We give a sequential model for noninterference security including probability (but not demonic choice), thus supporting reasoning about the likelihood that high-security values might be revealed by observations of low-security activity. Our novel methodological contribution is the definition of a refinement order and its use to compare security measures between specifications and (their supposed) implementations. This contrasts with the more common practice of evaluating the security of individual programs in isolation. The appropriateness of our model and order is supported by our showing that our refinement order is the greatest compositional relation --the compositional closure-- with respect to our semantics and an "elementary" order based on Bayes Risk --- a security measure already in widespread use. We also relate refinement to other measures such as Shannon Entropy. By applying the approach to a non-trivial example, the anonymous-majority Three-Judges protocol, we demonstrate by example that correctness arguments can be simplified by the sort of layered developments --through levels of increasing detail-- that are allowed and encouraged by compositional semantics

Semantics for Noninterference with Interaction Trees

Noninterference is the strong information-security property that a program does not leak secrets through publicly-visible behavior. In the presence of effects such as nontermination, state, and exceptions, reasoning about noninterference quickly becomes subtle. We advocate using interaction trees (ITrees) to provide compositional mechanized proofs of noninterference for multi-language, effectful, nonterminating programs, while retaining executability of the semantics. We develop important foundations for security analysis with ITrees: two indistinguishability relations, leading to two standard notions of noninterference with adversaries of different strength, along with metatheory libraries for reasoning about each. We demonstrate the utility of our results using a simple imperative language with embedded assembly, along with a compiler into that assembly language

The Meaning of Memory Safety

We give a rigorous characterization of what it means for a programming language to be memory safe, capturing the intuition that memory safety supports local reasoning about state. We formalize this principle in two ways. First, we show how a small memory-safe language validates a noninterference property: a program can neither affect nor be affected by unreachable parts of the state. Second, we extend separation logic, a proof system for heap-manipulating programs, with a memory-safe variant of its frame rule. The new rule is stronger because it applies even when parts of the program are buggy or malicious, but also weaker because it demands a stricter form of separation between parts of the program state. We also consider a number of pragmatically motivated variations on memory safety and the reasoning principles they support. As an application of our characterization, we evaluate the security of a previously proposed dynamic monitor for memory safety of heap-allocated data.Comment: POST'18 final versio

Noninterfering schedulers: when possibilistic noninterference implies probabilistic noninterference

We develop a framework for expressing and analyzing the behavior of probabilistic schedulers. There, we define noninterfering schedulers by a probabilistic interpretation of Goguen and Meseguer’s seminal notion of noninterference. Noninterfering schedulers are proved to be safe in the following sense: if a multi-threaded program is possibilistically noninterfering, then it is also probabilistically noninterfering when run under this scheduler

Proving concurrent noninterference

We perform a formal analysis of compositionality techniques for proving possibilistic noninterference for a while language with parallel composition. We develop a uniform framework where we express a wide range of noninterference variants from the literature and compare them w.r.t. their contracts: the strength of the security properties they ensure weighed against the harshness of the syntactic conditions they enforce. This results in a simple implementable algorithm for proving that a program has a specific noninterference property, using only compositionality, which captures uniformly several security type-system results from the literature and suggests a further improved type system. All formalism and theorems have been mechanically verified in Isabelle/HOL

Verifying That a Compiler Preserves Concurrent Value-Dependent Information-Flow Security

It is common to prove by reasoning over source code that programs do not leak sensitive data. But doing so leaves a gap between reasoning and reality that can only be filled by accounting for the behaviour of the compiler. This task is complicated when programs enforce value-dependent information-flow security properties (in which classification of locations can vary depending on values in other locations) and complicated further when programs exploit shared-variable concurrency. Prior work has formally defined a notion of concurrency-aware refinement for preserving value-dependent security properties. However, that notion is considerably more complex than standard refinement definitions typically applied in the verification of semantics preservation by compilers. To date it remains unclear whether it can be applied to a realistic compiler, because there exist no general decomposition principles for separating it into smaller, more familiar, proof obligations. In this work, we provide such a decomposition principle, which we show can almost halve the complexity of proving secure refinement. Further, we demonstrate its applicability to secure compilation, by proving in Isabelle/HOL the preservation of value-dependent security by a proof-of-concept compiler from an imperative While language to a generic RISC-style assembly language, for programs with shared-memory concurrency mediated by locking primitives. Finally, we execute our compiler in Isabelle on a While language model of the Cross Domain Desktop Compositor, demonstrating to our knowledge the first use of a compiler verification result to carry an information-flow security property down to the assembly-level model of a non-trivial concurrent program