Gaming security by obscurity

Shannon sought security against the attacker with unlimited computational powers: *if an information source conveys some information, then Shannon's attacker will surely extract that information*. Diffie and Hellman refined Shannon's attacker model by taking into account the fact that the real attackers are computationally limited. This idea became one of the greatest new paradigms in computer science, and led to modern cryptography. Shannon also sought security against the attacker with unlimited logical and observational powers, expressed through the maxim that "the enemy knows the system". This view is still endorsed in cryptography. The popular formulation, going back to Kerckhoffs, is that "there is no security by obscurity", meaning that the algorithms cannot be kept obscured from the attacker, and that security should only rely upon the secret keys. In fact, modern cryptography goes even further than Shannon or Kerckhoffs in tacitly assuming that *if there is an algorithm that can break the system, then the attacker will surely find that algorithm*. The attacker is not viewed as an omnipotent computer any more, but he is still construed as an omnipotent programmer. So the Diffie-Hellman step from unlimited to limited computational powers has not been extended into a step from unlimited to limited logical or programming powers. Is the assumption that all feasible algorithms will eventually be discovered and implemented really different from the assumption that everything that is computable will eventually be computed? The present paper explores some ways to refine the current models of the attacker, and of the defender, by taking into account their limited logical and programming powers. If the adaptive attacker actively queries the system to seek out its vulnerabilities, can the system gain some security by actively learning attacker's methods, and adapting to them?Comment: 15 pages, 9 figures, 2 tables; final version appeared in the Proceedings of New Security Paradigms Workshop 2011 (ACM 2011); typos correcte

Unifying type systems for mobile processes

We present a unifying framework for type systems for process calculi. The core of the system provides an accurate correspondence between essentially functional processes and linear logic proofs; fragments of this system correspond to previously known connections between proofs and processes. We show how the addition of extra logical axioms can widen the class of typeable processes in exchange for the loss of some computational properties like lock-freeness or termination, allowing us to see various well studied systems (like i/o types, linearity, control) as instances of a general pattern. This suggests unified methods for extending existing type systems with new features while staying in a well structured environment and constitutes a step towards the study of denotational semantics of processes using proof-theoretical methods

Monitoring-Oriented Programming: A Tool-Supported Methodology for Higher Quality Object-Oriented Software

This paper presents a tool-supported methodological paradigm for object-oriented software development, called monitoring-oriented programming and abbreviated MOP, in which runtime monitoring is a basic software design principle. The general idea underlying MOP is that software developers insert specifications in their code via annotations. Actual monitoring code is automatically synthesized from these annotations before compilation and integrated at appropriate places in the program, according to user-defined configuration attributes. This way, the specification is checked at runtime against the implementation. Moreover, violations and/or validations of specifications can trigger user-defined code at any points in the program, in particular recovery code, outputting or sending messages, or raising exceptions. The MOP paradigm does not promote or enforce any specific formalism to specify requirements: it allows the users to plug-in their favorite or domain-specific specification formalisms via logic plug-in modules. There are two major technical challenges that MOP supporting tools unavoidably face: monitor synthesis and monitor integration. The former is heavily dependent on the specification formalism and comes as part of the corresponding logic plug-in, while the latter is uniform for all specification formalisms and depends only on the target programming language. An experimental prototype tool, called Java-MOP, is also discussed, which currently supports most but not all of the desired MOP features. MOP aims at reducing the gap between formal specification and implementation, by integrating the two and allowing them together to form a system

Some observations on the logical foundations of inductive theorem proving

In this paper we study the logical foundations of automated inductive theorem proving. To that aim we first develop a theoretical model that is centered around the difficulty of finding induction axioms which are sufficient for proving a goal. Based on this model, we then analyze the following aspects: the choice of a proof shape, the choice of an induction rule and the language of the induction formula. In particular, using model-theoretic techniques, we clarify the relationship between notions of inductiveness that have been considered in the literature on automated inductive theorem proving. This is a corrected version of the paper arXiv:1704.01930v5 published originally on Nov.~16, 2017

Permission-Based Separation Logic for Multithreaded Java Programs

This paper presents a program logic for reasoning about multithreaded Java-like programs with dynamic thread creation, thread joining and reentrant object monitors. The logic is based on concurrent separation logic. It is the first detailed adaptation of concurrent separation logic to a multithreaded Java-like language. The program logic associates a unique static access permission with each heap location, ensuring exclusive write accesses and ruling out data races. Concurrent reads are supported through fractional permissions. Permissions can be transferred between threads upon thread starting, thread joining, initial monitor entrancies and final monitor exits. In order to distinguish between initial monitor entrancies and monitor reentrancies, auxiliary variables keep track of multisets of currently held monitors. Data abstraction and behavioral subtyping are facilitated through abstract predicates, which are also used to represent monitor invariants, preconditions for thread starting and postconditions for thread joining. Value-parametrized types allow to conveniently capture common strong global invariants, like static object ownership relations. The program logic is presented for a model language with Java-like classes and interfaces, the soundness of the program logic is proven, and a number of illustrative examples are presented