Logical concepts in cryptography

This thesis is about a breadth-first exploration of logical concepts in cryptography and their linguistic abstraction and model-theoretic combination in a comprehensive logical system, called CPL (for Cryptographic Protocol Logic). We focus on two fundamental aspects of cryptography. Namely, the security of communication (as opposed to security of storage) and cryptographic protocols (as opposed to cryptographic operators). The primary logical concepts explored are the following: the modal concepts of belief, knowledge, norms, provability, space, and time. The distinguishing feature of CPL is that it unifies and refines a variety of existing approaches. This feature is the result of our wholistic conception of property-based (modal logics) and model-based (process algebra) formalisms

Chasing diagrams in cryptography

Cryptography is a theory of secret functions. Category theory is a general theory of functions. Cryptography has reached a stage where its structures often take several pages to define, and its formulas sometimes run from page to page. Category theory has some complicated definitions as well, but one of its specialties is taming the flood of structure. Cryptography seems to be in need of high level methods, whereas category theory always needs concrete applications. So why is there no categorical cryptography? One reason may be that the foundations of modern cryptography are built from probabilistic polynomial-time Turing machines, and category theory does not have a good handle on such things. On the other hand, such foundational problems might be the very reason why cryptographic constructions often resemble low level machine programming. I present some preliminary explorations towards categorical cryptography. It turns out that some of the main security concepts are easily characterized through the categorical technique of *diagram chasing*, which was first used Lambek's seminal `Lecture Notes on Rings and Modules'.Comment: 17 pages, 4 figures; to appear in: 'Categories in Logic, Language and Physics. Festschrift on the occasion of Jim Lambek's 90th birthday', Claudia Casadio, Bob Coecke, Michael Moortgat, and Philip Scott (editors); this version: fixed typos found by kind reader

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

Managed ecosystems of networked objects

Small embedded devices such as sensors and actuators will become the cornerstone of the Future Internet. To this end, generic, open and secure communication and service platforms are needed in order to be able to exploit the new business opportunities these devices bring. In this paper, we evaluate the current efforts to integrate sensors and actuators into the Internet and identify the limitations at the level of cooperation of these Internet-connected objects and the possible intelligence at the end points. As a solution, we propose the concept of Managed Ecosystem of Networked Objects, which aims to create a smart network architecture for groups of Internet-connected objects by combining network virtualization and clean-slate end-to-end protocol design. The concept maps to many real-life scenarios and should empower application developers to use sensor data in an easy and natural way. At the same time, the concept introduces many new challenging research problems, but their realization could offer a meaningful contribution to the realization of the Internet of Things

Graphical Methods in Device-Independent Quantum Cryptography

We introduce a framework for graphical security proofs in device-independent quantum cryptography using the methods of categorical quantum mechanics. We are optimistic that this approach will make some of the highly complex proofs in quantum cryptography more accessible, facilitate the discovery of new proofs, and enable automated proof verification. As an example of our framework, we reprove a previous result from device-independent quantum cryptography: any linear randomness expansion protocol can be converted into an unbounded randomness expansion protocol. We give a graphical proof of this result, and implement part of it in the Globular proof assistant.Comment: Publishable version. Diagrams have been polished, minor revisions to the text, and an appendix added with supplementary proof