Automated Cryptographic Analysis of the Pedersen Commitment Scheme

Aiming for strong security assurance, recently there has been an increasing interest in formal verification of cryptographic constructions. This paper presents a mechanised formal verification of the popular Pedersen commitment protocol, proving its security properties of correctness, perfect hiding, and computational binding. To formally verify the protocol, we extended the theory of EasyCrypt, a framework which allows for reasoning in the computational model, to support the discrete logarithm and an abstraction of commitment protocols. Commitments are building blocks of many cryptographic constructions, for example, verifiable secret sharing, zero-knowledge proofs, and e-voting. Our work paves the way for the verification of those more complex constructions.Comment: 12 pages, conference MMM-ACNS 201

Computer-aided verification in mechanism design

In mechanism design, the gold standard solution concepts are dominant strategy incentive compatibility and Bayesian incentive compatibility. These solution concepts relieve the (possibly unsophisticated) bidders from the need to engage in complicated strategizing. While incentive properties are simple to state, their proofs are specific to the mechanism and can be quite complex. This raises two concerns. From a practical perspective, checking a complex proof can be a tedious process, often requiring experts knowledgeable in mechanism design. Furthermore, from a modeling perspective, if unsophisticated agents are unconvinced of incentive properties, they may strategize in unpredictable ways. To address both concerns, we explore techniques from computer-aided verification to construct formal proofs of incentive properties. Because formal proofs can be automatically checked, agents do not need to manually check the properties, or even understand the proof. To demonstrate, we present the verification of a sophisticated mechanism: the generic reduction from Bayesian incentive compatible mechanism design to algorithm design given by Hartline, Kleinberg, and Malekian. This mechanism presents new challenges for formal verification, including essential use of randomness from both the execution of the mechanism and from the prior type distributions. As an immediate consequence, our work also formalizes Bayesian incentive compatibility for the entire family of mechanisms derived via this reduction. Finally, as an intermediate step in our formalization, we provide the first formal verification of incentive compatibility for the celebrated Vickrey-Clarke-Groves mechanism

Computer-Aided Cryptographic Proofs

International audienceProvable security [6] is at the heart of modern cryptography. It advocates a mathematical approach in which the security of new cryptographic constructions is defined rigorously, and provably reduced to one or several assumptions, such as the hardness of a computational problem, or the existence of an ideal functionality. A typical provable security statement is of the form: for all adversary against the cryptographic construction TeX , there exists an adversary TeX against a security assumption TeX , such that if TeX has a high probability of breaking the scheme TeX in time t, then TeX has a high probability of breaking the assumption TeX in time t′ (defined as a function of t)

Synthesizing Probabilistic Invariants via Doob's Decomposition

When analyzing probabilistic computations, a powerful approach is to first find a martingale---an expression on the program variables whose expectation remains invariant---and then apply the optional stopping theorem in order to infer properties at termination time. One of the main challenges, then, is to systematically find martingales. We propose a novel procedure to synthesize martingale expressions from an arbitrary initial expression. Contrary to state-of-the-art approaches, we do not rely on constraint solving. Instead, we use a symbolic construction based on Doob's decomposition. This procedure can produce very complex martingales, expressed in terms of conditional expectations. We show how to automatically generate and simplify these martingales, as well as how to apply the optional stopping theorem to infer properties at termination time. This last step typically involves some simplification steps, and is usually done manually in current approaches. We implement our techniques in a prototype tool and demonstrate our process on several classical examples. Some of them go beyond the capability of current semi-automatic approaches

Relational reasoning via probabilistic coupling

Probabilistic coupling is a powerful tool for analyzing pairs of probabilistic processes. Roughly, coupling two processes requires finding an appropriate witness process that models both processes in the same probability space. Couplings are powerful tools proving properties about the relation between two processes, include reasoning about convergence of distributions and stochastic dominance---a probabilistic version of a monotonicity property. While the mathematical definition of coupling looks rather complex and cumbersome to manipulate, we show that the relational program logic pRHL---the logic underlying the EasyCrypt cryptographic proof assistant---already internalizes a generalization of probabilistic coupling. With this insight, constructing couplings is no harder than constructing logical proofs. We demonstrate how to express and verify classic examples of couplings in pRHL, and we mechanically verify several couplings in EasyCrypt

Probabilistic relational Hoare logics for computer-aided security proofs

International audienceNon

A Theory AB Toolbox

Randomized algorithms are a staple of the theoretical computer science literature. By careful use of randomness, algorithms can achieve properties that are simply not possible with deterministic algorithms. Today, these properties are proved on paper, by theoretical computer scientists; we investigate formally verifying these proofs. The main challenges are two: proofs about algorithms can be quite complex, using various facts from probability theory; and proofs are highly customized - two proofs of the same property for two algorithms can be completely different. To overcome these challenges, we propose taking inspiration from paper proofs, by building common tools - abstractions, reasoning principles, perhaps even notations - into a formal verification toolbox. To give an idea of our approach, we consider three common patterns in paper proofs: the union bound, concentration bounds, and martingale arguments