644 research outputs found
IoTSan: Fortifying the Safety of IoT Systems
Today's IoT systems include event-driven smart applications (apps) that
interact with sensors and actuators. A problem specific to IoT systems is that
buggy apps, unforeseen bad app interactions, or device/communication failures,
can cause unsafe and dangerous physical states. Detecting flaws that lead to
such states, requires a holistic view of installed apps, component devices,
their configurations, and more importantly, how they interact. In this paper,
we design IoTSan, a novel practical system that uses model checking as a
building block to reveal "interaction-level" flaws by identifying events that
can lead the system to unsafe states. In building IoTSan, we design novel
techniques tailored to IoT systems, to alleviate the state explosion associated
with model checking. IoTSan also automatically translates IoT apps into a
format amenable to model checking. Finally, to understand the root cause of a
detected vulnerability, we design an attribution mechanism to identify
problematic and potentially malicious apps. We evaluate IoTSan on the Samsung
SmartThings platform. From 76 manually configured systems, IoTSan detects 147
vulnerabilities. We also evaluate IoTSan with malicious SmartThings apps from a
previous effort. IoTSan detects the potential safety violations and also
effectively attributes these apps as malicious.Comment: Proc. of the 14th ACM CoNEXT, 201
Safe and Secure Support for Public Safety Networks
International audienceAs explained by Tanzi et al. in the first volume of this book, communicating and autonomous devices will surely have a role to play in the future Public Safety Networks. The âcommunicatingâ feature comes from the fact that the information should be delivered in a fast way to rescuers. The âautonomousâ characteristic comes from the fact that rescuers should not have to concern themselves about these objects: they should perform their mission autonomously so as not to delay the intervention of the rescuers, but rather to assist them efficiently and reliably.</p
Composable Models for Timing and Liveness Analysis in Distributed Real-Time Embedded Systems Middleware
Middleware for distributed real-time embedded (DRE) systems has grown increasingly complex, to address functional and temporal requirements of diverse applications. While current approaches to modeling middleware have eased the task of assembling, deploying and conïŹguring middleware and the applications that use it, a lower-level set of formal models is needed to uncover subtle timing and liveness hazards introduced by interference between and within distributed computations, particularly in the face of alternative middleware concurrency strategies. In this paper, we propose timed automata as a formal model of low-level middleware building blocks from which a variety different middleware conïŹgurations can be constructed. When combined with analysis techniques such as model checking, this formal model can help developers in verifying the correctness of various middleware conïŹgurations with respect to the timing and liveness constraints of each particular application
Reusable Models for Timing and Liveness Analysis of Middleware for Distributed Real-Time and Embedded Systems
Distributed real-time and embedded (DRE) systems have stringent constraints on timeliness and other properties whose assurance is crucial to correct system behavior. Formal tools and techniques play a key role in verifying and validating system properties. However, many DRE systems are built using middleware frameworks that have grown increasingly complex to address the diverse requirements of a wide range of applications. How to apply formal tools and techniques effectively to these systems, given the range of middleware configuration options available, is therefore an important research problem. This paper makes three contributions to research on formal verification and validation of middleware-based DRE systems. First, it presents a reusable library of formal models we have developed to capture essential timing and concurrency semantics of foundational middleware building blocks provided by the ACE framework. Second, it describes domain-specific techniques to reduce the cost of checking those models while ensuring they remain valid with respect to the semantics of the middleware itself. Third, it presents a verification and validation case study involving a gateway service, using our models
Developing a distributed electronic health-record store for India
The DIGHT project is addressing the problem of building a scalable and highly available information store for the Electronic Health Records (EHRs) of the over one billion citizens of India
Exploring formal verification methodology for FPGA-based digital systems.
Abstract Not Provide
Evaluating how agent methodologies support the specification of the normative environment through the development process
[EN] Due to the increase in collaborative work and the decentralization of processes in
many domains, there is an expanding demand for large-scale, flexible and adaptive software
systems to support the interactions of people and institutions distributed in heterogeneous
environments. Commonly, these software applications should follow specific regulations
meaning the actors using them are bound by rights, duties and restrictions. Since this normative
environment determines the final design of the software system, it should be considered
as an important issue during the design of the system. Some agent-oriented software engineering
methodologies deal with the development of normative systems (systems that have a
normative environment) by integrating the analysis of the normative environment of a system
in the development process. This paper analyses to what extent these methodologies support
the analysis and formalisation of the normative environment and highlights some open issues
of the topic.This work is partially supported by the PROMETEOII/2013/019, TIN2012-36586-C03-01, FP7-29493, TIN2011-27652-C03-00, CSD2007-00022 projects, and the CASES project within the 7th European Community Framework Program under the grant agreement No 294931.Garcia Marques, ME.; Miles, S.; Luck, M.; Giret Boggino, AS. (2014). Evaluating how agent methodologies support the specification of the normative environment through the development process. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-014-9275-zS120Cossentino, M., Hilaire, V., Molesini, A., & Seidita, V. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook on agent-oriented design processes (Vol. VIII, 569 p. 508 illus.). Berlin: Springer.Akbari, O. (2010). A survey of agent-oriented software engineering paradigm: Towards its industrial acceptance. Journal of Computer Engineering Research, 1, 14â28.Argente, E., Botti, V., Carrascosa, C., Giret, A., Julian, V., & Rebollo, M. (2011). An abstract architecture for virtual organizations: The THOMAS approach. Knowledge and Information Systems, 29(2), 379â403.Argente, E., Botti, V., & Julian, V. (2009). GORMAS: An organizational-oriented methodological guideline for open MAS. In Proceedings of AOSEâ09 (pp. 440â449).Argente, E., Botti, V., & Julian, V. (2009). Organizational-oriented methodological guidelines for designing virtual organizations. In Distributed computing, artificial intelligence, bioinformatics, soft computing, and ambient assisted living. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 5518, pp. 154â162).Boella, G., Pigozzi, G., & van der Torre, L. (2009). Normative systems in computer scienceâTen guidelines for normative multiagent systems. In G. Boella, P. Noriega, G. Pigozzi, & H. Verhagen (Eds.), Normative multi-agent systems, number 09121 in Dagstuhl seminar proceedings.Boella, G., Torre, L., & Verhagen, H. (2006). Introduction to normative multiagent systems. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 12(2â3), 71â79.Bogdanovych, A., Esteva, M., Simoff, S., Sierra, C., & Berger, H. (2008). A methodology for developing multiagent systems as 3d electronic institutions. In M. Luck & L. Padgham (Eds.), Agent-Oriented Software Engineering VIII (Vol. 4951, pp. 103â117). Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin: Springer.Boissier, O., Padget, J., Dignum, V., Lindemann, G., Matson, E., Ossowski, S., Sichman, J., & Vazquez-Salceda, J. (2006). Coordination, organizations, institutions and norms in multi-agent systems. LNCS (LNAI) (Vol. 3913).Bordini, R. H., Fisher, M., Visser, W., & Wooldridge, M. (2006). Verifying multi-agent programs by model checking. In Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (Vol. 12, pp. 239â256). Hingham, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Botti, V., Garrido, A., Giret, A., & Noriega, P. (2011). The role of MAS as a decision support tool in a water-rights market. In Post-proceedings workshops AAMAS2011 (Vol. 7068, pp. 35â49). Berlin: Springer.Breaux, T. (2009). Exercising due diligence in legal requirements acquisition: A tool-supported, frame-based approach. In Proceedings of the IEEE international requirements engineering conference (pp. 225â230).Breaux, T. D., & Baumer, D. L. (2011). Legally reasonable security requirements: A 10-year ftc retrospective. Computers and Security, 30(4), 178â193.Breaux, T. D., Vail, M. W., & Anton, A. I. (2006). Towards regulatory compliance: Extracting rights and obligations to align requirements with regulations. In Proceedings of the 14th IEEE international requirements engineering conference, RE â06 (pp. 46â55). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., & Mylopoulos, J. (2004). Tropos: An agent-oriented software development methodology. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 8(3), 203â236.Cardoso, H. L., & Oliveira, E. (2008). A contract model for electronic institutions. In COINâ07: Proceedings of the 2007 international conference on Coordination, organizations, institutions, and norms in agent systems III (pp. 27â40).Castor, A., Pinto, R. C., Silva, C. T. L. L., & Castro, J. (2004). Towards requirement traceability in tropos. In WER (pp. 189â200).Chopra, A., Dalpiaz, F., Giorgini, P., & Mylopoulos, J. (2009). Modeling and reasoning about service-oriented applications via goals and commitments. ICST conference on digital business.Cliffe, O., Vos, M., & Padget, J. (2006). Specifying and analysing agent-based social institutions using answer set programming. In O. Boissier, J. Padget, V. Dignum, G. Lindemann, E. Matson, S. Ossowski, J. Sichman, & J. VĂĄzquez-Salceda (Eds.), Coordination, organizations, institutions, and norms in multi-agent systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 3913, pp. 99â113). Springer. Berlin.Criado, N., Argente, E., Garrido, A., Gimeno, J. A., Igual, F., Botti, V., Noriega, P., & Giret, A. (2011). Norm enforceability in Electronic Institutions? In Coordination, organizations, institutions, and norms in agent systems VI (Vol. 6541, pp. 250â267). Springer.Dellarocas, C., & Klein, M. (2001). Contractual agent societies. In R. Conte & C. Dellarocas (Eds.), Social order in multiagent systems (Vol. 2, pp. 113â133)., Multiagent Systems, Artificial Societies, and Simulated Organizations New York: Springer.DeLoach, S. A. (2008). Developing a multiagent conference management system using the o-mase process framework. In Proceedings of the international conference on agent-oriented software engineering VIII (pp. 168â181).DeLoach, S. A., & Garcia-Ojeda, J. C. (2010). O-mase; a customisable approach to designing and building complex, adaptive multi-agent systems. International Journal of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, 4(3), 244â280.DeLoach, S. A., Padgham, L., Perini, A., Susi, A., & Thangarajah, J. (2009). Using three aose toolkits to develop a sample design. International Journal Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, 3, 416â476.Dignum, F., Dignum, V., Thangarajah, J., Padgham, L., & Winikoff, M. (2007). Open agent systems? Eighth international workshop on agent oriented software engineering (AOSE) in AAMAS07.Dignum, V. (2003). A model for organizational interaction:based on agents, founded in logic. PhD thesis, Utrecht University.Dignum, V., Meyer, J., Dignum, F., & Weigand, H. (2003). Formal specification of interaction in agent societies. Formal approaches to agent-based systems (Vol. 2699).Dignum, V., Vazquez-Salceda, J., & Dignum, F. (2005). Omni: Introducing social structure, norms and ontologies into agent organizations. In R. Bordini, M. Dastani, J. Dix, & A. Seghrouchni (Eds.)Programming multi-agent systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 3346, pp. 181â198). Berlin: Springer.dâInverno, M., Luck, M., Noriega, P., Rodriguez-Aguilar, J., & Sierra, C. (2012). Communicating open systems, 186, 38â94.Elsenbroich, C., & Gilbert, N. (2014). Agent-based modelling. In Modelling norms (pp. 65â84). Dordrecht: Springer.Esteva, M., Rosell, B., Rodriguez, J. A., & Arcos, J. L. (2004). AMELI: An agent-based middleware for electronic institutions. In AAMAS04 (pp. 236â243).Fenech, S., Pace, G. J., & Schneider, G. (2009). Automatic conflict detection on contracts. In Proceedings of the 6th international colloquium on theoretical aspects of computing, ICTAC â09 (pp. 200â214).Garbay, C., Badeig, F., & Caelen, J. (2012). Normative multi-agent approach to support collaborative work in distributed tangible environments. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work companion, CSCW â12 (pp. 83â86). New York, NY: ACM.Garcia, E., Giret, A., & Botti, V. (2011). Regulated open multi-agent systems based on contracts. In Information Systems Development (pp. 243â255).Garcia, E., Tyson, G., Miles, S., Luck, M., Taweel, A., Staa, T. V., & Delaney, B. (2012). An analysis of agent-oriented engineering of e-health systems. In 13th international eorkshop on sgent-oriented software engineering (AOSE-AAMAS).Garcia, E., Tyson, G., Miles, S., Luck, M., Taweel, A., Staa, T. V., and Delaney, B. (2013). Analysing the Suitability of Multiagent Methodologies for e-Health Systems. In Agent-Oriented Software Engineering XIII, volume 7852, pages 134â150. Springer-Verlag.Garrido, A., Giret, A., Botti, V., & Noriega, P. (2013). mWater, a case study for modeling virtual markets. In New perspectives on agreement technologies (Vol. Law, Gover, pp. 563â579). Springer.Gteau, B., Boissier, O., & Khadraoui, D. (2006). Multi-agent-based support for electronic contracting in virtual enterprises. IFAC Symposium on Information Control Problems in Manufacturing (INCOM), 150(3), 73â91.Hollander, C. D., & Wu, A. S. (2011). The current state of normative agent-based systems. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 14(2), 6.Hsieh, F.-S. (2005). Automated negotiation based on contract net and petri net. In E-commerce and web technologies. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 3590, pp. 148â157).Kollingbaum, M., Jureta, I. J., Vasconcelos, W., & Sycara, K. (2008). Automated requirements-driven definition of norms for the regulation of behavior in multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the AISB 2008 workshop on behaviour regulation in multi-agent systems, Aberdeen, Scotland, U.K., April 2008.Li, T., Balke, T., Vos, M., Satoh, K., & Padget, J. (2013). Detecting conflicts in legal systems. In Y. Motomura, A. Butler, & D. Bekki (Eds.), New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 7856, pp. 174â189)., Lecture Notes in Computer Science Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.Lomuscio, A., Qu, H., & Solanki, M. (2010) Towards verifying contract regulated service composition. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (pp. 1â29).Lopez, F., Luck, M., & dâInverno, M. (2006). A normative framework for agent-based systems. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 12, 227â250.Lpez, F. y, Luck, M., & dInverno, M. (2006). A normative framework for agent-based systems. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 12(2â3), 227â250.Mader, P., & Egyed, A. (2012). Assessing the effect of requirements traceability for software maintenance. In 28th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM) (pp. 171â180), Sept 2012.Mao, X., & Yu, E. (2005). Organizational and social concepts in agent oriented software engineering. In AOSE IV. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 3382, pp. 184â202).Meyer, J.-J. C., & Wieringa, R. J. (Eds.). (1993). Deontic logic in computer science: Normative system specification. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Okouya, D., & Dignum, V. (2008). Operetta: A prototype tool for the design, analysis and development of multi-agent organizations (demo paper). In AAMAS (pp. 1667â1678).Malone, T. W., Smith J. B., & Olson, G. M. (2001). Coordination theory and collaboration technology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Oren, N., Panagiotidi, S., VĂĄzquez-Salceda, J., Modgil, S., Luck, M., & Miles, S. (2009). Towards a formalisation of electronic contracting environments. COIN (pp. 156â171).Osman, N., Robertson, D., & Walton, C. (2006). Run-time model checking of interaction and deontic models for multi-agent systems. In AAMAS â06: Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 238â240). New York, NY: ACM.Pace, G., Prisacariu, C., & Schneider, G. (2007). Model checking contracts a case study. In Automated technology for verification and analysis. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 4762, pp. 82â97).Rotolo, A., & van der Torre, L. (2011). Rules, agents and norms: Guidelines for rule-based normative multi-agent systems. RuleML Europe, 6826, 52â66.Saeki, M., & Kaiya, H. (2008). Supporting the elicitation of requirements compliant with regulations. In CAiSE â08 (pp. 228â242).Siena, A., Mylopoulos, J., Perini, A., & Susi, A. (2009). Designing law-compliant software requirements. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on conceptual modeling, ER â09 (pp. 472â486).Singh, M. P. Commitments in multiagent systems: Some history, some confusions, some controversies, some prospects.Solaiman, E., Molina-Jimenez, C., & Shrivastav, S. (2003). Model checking correctness properties of electronic contracts. In Service-oriented computingâICSOC 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 2910, pp. 303â318). Berlin: Springer.Telang, P. R., & Singh, M. P. (2009). Conceptual modeling: Foundations and applications. Enhancing tropos with commitments (pp. 417â435).VĂĄzquez-Salceda, J., Confalonieri, R., Gomez, I., Storms, P., Nick Kuijpers, S. P., & Alvarez, S. (2009). Modelling contractually-bounded interactions in the car insurance domain. DIGIBIZ 2009.ViganĂČ, F., & Colombetti, M. (2007). Symbolic model checking of institutions. In ICEC (pp. 35â44).Walton, C. D. (2007). Verifiable agent dialogues. Journal of Applied Logic, 5(2):197â213, Logic-Based Agent Verification.Winkler, S., & Pilgrim, J. (2010). A survey of traceability in requirements engineering and model-driven development. Software and Systems Modeling (SoSyM), 9(4), 529â565.Wooldridge, M., Fisher, M., Huget, M., & Parsons, S. (2002). Model checking multi-agent systems with mable. In AAMAS02 (pp. 952â959). ACM
06261 Abstracts Collection -- Foundations and Practice of Programming Multi-Agent Systems
From 25.06.06 to 30.06.06, the Dagstuhl Seminar 06261 ``Foundations and Practice of Programming Multi-Agent Systems\u27\u27 was held in the International Conference and Research Center (IBFI), Schloss Dagstuhl.
During the seminar, several participants presented their current
research, and ongoing work and open problems were discussed. Abstracts of
the presentations given during the seminar as well as abstracts of
seminar results and ideas are put together in this paper. The first section
describes the seminar topics and goals in general.
Links to extended abstracts or full papers are provided, if available
Model checking web applications
The modelling of web-based applications can assist in capturing and understanding their behaviour.
The development of such applications requires the use of sound methodologies to ensure that the
intended and actual behaviour are the same.
As a verification technique, model checking can assist in finding design
flaws and simplifying the
design of a web application, and as a result the design and the security of the web application can
be improved. Model checking has the advantage of using an exhaustive search of the state space of
a system to determine if the specifications are true or not in a given model.
In this thesis we present novel approaches in modelling and verifying web applications' properties
to ensure their design correctness and security. Since the actions in web applications rely on both
the user input and the server status; we propose an approach for modelling and verifying dynamic
navigation properties. The Spin model checker has been used successfully in verifying communication
protocols. However, the current version of Spin does not support modelling time. We integrate
discrete time in the Spin model to allow the modelling of realistic properties that rely on time
constraints and to analyse the sequence of actions and time. Examining the sequence of actions in
web applications assists in understanding their behaviour in different scenarios such as navigation
errors and in the presence of an intruder. The model checker Uppaal is presented in the literature
as an alternative to Spin when modelling real-time systems. We develop models with real time
constraints in Uppaal in order to validate the results from the Spin models and to compare the
differences between modelling with real time and with discrete time as in Spin. We also compare
the complexity and expressiveness of each model checker in verifying web applications' properties.
The web application models in our research are developed gradually to ensure their correctness and
to manage the complexities of specifying the security and navigation properties. We analyse the
compromised model to compare the differences in the sequence of actions and time with the secure
model to assist in improving early detections of malicious behaviour in web applications
- âŠ