Relating Process Algebras and Multiset Rewriting for Security Protocol Analysis

When formalizing security protocols, different specification languages support very different reasoning methodologies, whose results are not directly or easily comparable. Therefore, establishing clear relationships among different frameworks is highly desirable, as it permits various methodologies to cooperate by interpreting theoretical and practical results of one system in another. In this paper, we examine the nontrivial relationship between two general verification frameworks: multiset rewriting (MSR) and a process algebra (PA) inspired to the CCS and the -calculus. We present two separate mappings, one from MSR to PA and the other from PA to MSR. Although defining a simple and general bijection between MSR and PA appears difficult, we show that in the specific context of cryptographic protocols they do admit effective translations that preserve trace

Relating Multiset Rewriting and Process Algebras for Security Protocol Analysis

When formalizing security protocols, different specification languages support very different reasoning methodologies, whose results are not directly or easily comparable. Therefore, establishing clear mappings among different frameworks is highly desirable, as it permits various methodologies to cooperate by interpreting theoretical and practical results of one system into another. In this paper, we examine the relationship between two general verification frameworks: multiset rewriting (MSR) and a process algebra (PA) inspired to CCS and the -calculus. Although defining a simple and general bi-jection between MSR and PA appears difficult, we show that the sublanguages needed to specify cryptographic protocols admit an effective translation that is not only trace-preserving, but also induces a correspondence relation between the two languages. In particular, the correspondence sketched in this paper permits transferring several important trace-based properties such as secrecy and many forms of authentication

A Semantics-Based Approach to Optimizing Unstructured Mesh Abstractions

Computational scientists are frequently confronted with a choice: implement algorithms using high-level abstractions, such as matrices and mesh entities, for greater programming productivity or code them using low-level language constructs for greater execution efficiency. We have observed that the cost of implementing a representative unstructured mesh code with high-level abstractions is poor computational intensity---the ratio of floating point operations to memory accesses. Related scientific applications frequently produce little ``science per cycle'' because their abstractions both introduce additional overhead and hinder compiler analysis and subsequent optimization. Our work exploits the semantics of abstractions, as employed in unstructured mesh codes, to overcome these limitations and to guide a series of manual, domain-specific optimizations that significantly improve computational intensity. We propose a framework for the automation of such high-level optimizations within the ROSE source-to-source compiler infrastructure. The specification of optimizations is left to domain experts and library writers who best understand the semantics of their applications and libraries and who are thus best poised to describe their optimization. Our source-to-source approach translates different constructs (e.g., C code written in a procedural style or C++ code written in an object-oriented style) to a procedural form in order to simplify the specification of optimizations. This is accomplished through raising operators, which are specified by a domain expert and are used to project a concrete application from an implementation space to an abstraction space, where optimizations are applied. The transformed code in the abstraction space is then reified as a concrete implementation via lowering operators, which are automatically inferred by inverting the raising operators. Applying optimizations within the abstraction space, rather than the implementation space, leads to greater optimization portability. We use this framework to automate two high-level optimizations. The first uses an inspector/executor approach to avoid costly and redundant traversals of a static mesh by memoizing the relatively few references required to perform the mathematical computations. During the executor phase, the stored entities are accessed directly without resort to the indirection inherent in the original traversal. The second optimization lowers an object-oriented mesh framework, which uses C++ objects to access the mesh and iterate over mesh entities, to a low-level implementation, which uses integer-based access and iteration.Support was provided by a DOE High-Performance Computer Science Fellowship administered by The Krell Institute, Ames, IA

Proceedings of the 22nd Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design – FMCAD 2022

The Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (FMCAD) is an annual conference on the theory and applications of formal methods in hardware and system verification. FMCAD provides a leading forum to researchers in academia and industry for presenting and discussing groundbreaking methods, technologies, theoretical results, and tools for reasoning formally about computing systems. FMCAD covers formal aspects of computer-aided system design including verification, specification, synthesis, and testing

Journal of Telecommunications and Information Technology, 2002, nr 4

kwartalni

Proceedings of the 22nd Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design – FMCAD 2022

The Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (FMCAD) is an annual conference on the theory and applications of formal methods in hardware and system verification. FMCAD provides a leading forum to researchers in academia and industry for presenting and discussing groundbreaking methods, technologies, theoretical results, and tools for reasoning formally about computing systems. FMCAD covers formal aspects of computer-aided system design including verification, specification, synthesis, and testing