5,634 research outputs found

    Formally verifying Exceptions for Low-level code with Separation Logic

    Get PDF
    Exceptions in low-level architectures are implemented as synchronous interrupts: upon the execution of a faulty instruction the processor jumps to a piece of code that handles the error. Previous work has shown that assembly programs can be written, verified and run using higher-order separation logic. However, execution of faulty instructions is then specified as either being undefined or terminating with an error. In this paper, we study synchronous interrupts and show their usefulness by implementing a memory allocator. This shows that it is indeed possible to write positive specifications of programs that fault. All of our results are mechanised in the interactive proof assistant Coq

    Formally based semi-automatic implementation of an open security protocol

    Get PDF
    International audienceThis paper presents an experiment in which an implementation of the client side of the SSH Transport Layer Protocol (SSH-TLP) was semi-automatically derived according to a model-driven development paradigm that leverages formal methods in order to obtain high correctness assurance. The approach used in the experiment starts with the formalization of the protocol at an abstract level. This model is then formally proved to fulfill the desired secrecy and authentication properties by using the ProVerif prover. Finally, a sound Java implementation is semi-automatically derived from the verified model using an enhanced version of the Spi2Java framework. The resulting implementation correctly interoperates with third party servers, and its execution time is comparable with that of other manually developed Java SSH-TLP client implementations. This case study demonstrates that the adopted model-driven approach is viable even for a real security protocol, despite the complexity of the models needed in order to achieve an interoperable implementation

    Formalizing, Verifying and Applying ISA Security Guarantees as Universal Contracts

    Full text link
    Progress has recently been made on specifying instruction set architectures (ISAs) in executable formalisms rather than through prose. However, to date, those formal specifications are limited to the functional aspects of the ISA and do not cover its security guarantees. We present a novel, general method for formally specifying an ISAs security guarantees to (1) balance the needs of ISA implementations (hardware) and clients (software), (2) can be semi-automatically verified to hold for the ISA operational semantics, producing a high-assurance mechanically-verifiable proof, and (3) support informal and formal reasoning about security-critical software in the presence of adversarial code. Our method leverages universal contracts: software contracts that express bounds on the authority of arbitrary untrusted code. Universal contracts can be kept agnostic of software abstractions, and strike the right balance between requiring sufficient detail for reasoning about software and preserving implementation freedom of ISA designers and CPU implementers. We semi-automatically verify universal contracts against Sail implementations of ISA semantics using our Katamaran tool; a semi-automatic separation logic verifier for Sail which produces machine-checked proofs for successfully verified contracts. We demonstrate the generality of our method by applying it to two ISAs that offer very different security primitives: (1) MinimalCaps: a custom-built capability machine ISA and (2) a (somewhat simplified) version of RISC-V with PMP. We verify a femtokernel using the security guarantee we have formalized for RISC-V with PMP

    Resource Usage Protocols for Iterators

    Get PDF
    We discuss usage protocols for iterator objects that prevent concurrent modifications of the underlying collection while iterators are in progress. We formalize these protocols in Java-like object interfaces, enriched with separation logic contracts. We present examples of iterator clients and proofs that they adhere to the iterator protocol, as well as examples of iterator implementations and proofs that they implement the iterator interface
    corecore