Procedure-modular specification and verification of temporal safety properties

This paper describes ProMoVer, a tool for fully automated procedure-modular verification of Java programs equipped with method-local and global assertions that specify safety properties of sequences of method invocations. Modularity at the procedure-level is a natural instantiation of the modular verification paradigm, where correctness of global properties is relativized on the local properties of the methods rather than on their implementations. Here, it is based on the construction of maximal models for a program model that abstracts away from program data. This approach allows global properties to be verified in the presence of code evolution, multiple method implementations (as arising from software product lines), or even unknown method implementations (as in mobile code for open platforms). ProMoVer automates a typical verification scenario for a previously developed tool set for compositional verification of control flow safety properties, and provides appropriate pre- and post-processing. Both linear-time temporal logic and finite automata are supported as formalisms for expressing local and global safety properties, allowing the user to choose a suitable format for the property at hand. Modularity is exploited by a mechanism for proof reuse that detects and minimizes the verification tasks resulting from changes in the code and the specifications. The verification task is relatively light-weight due to support for abstraction from private methods and automatic extraction of candidate specifications from method implementations. We evaluate the tool on a number of applications from the domains of Java Card and web-based application

Trojans in Early Design Steps—An Emerging Threat

Hardware Trojans inserted by malicious foundries during integrated circuit manufacturing have received substantial attention in recent years. In this paper, we focus on a different type of hardware Trojan threats: attacks in the early steps of design process. We show that third-party intellectual property cores and CAD tools constitute realistic attack surfaces and that even system specification can be targeted by adversaries. We discuss the devastating damage potential of such attacks, the applicable countermeasures against them and their deficiencies

Metamodel-based model conformance and multiview consistency checking

Model-driven development, using languages such as UML and BON, often makes use of multiple diagrams (e.g., class and sequence diagrams) when modeling systems. These diagrams, presenting different views of a system of interest, may be inconsistent. A metamodel provides a unifying framework in which to ensure and check consistency, while at the same time providing the means to distinguish between valid and invalid models, that is, conformance. Two formal specifications of the metamodel for an object-oriented modeling language are presented, and it is shown how to use these specifications for model conformance and multiview consistency checking. Comparisons are made in terms of completeness and the level of automation each provide for checking multiview consistency and model conformance. The lessons learned from applying formal techniques to the problems of metamodeling, model conformance, and multiview consistency checking are summarized

Feature-Aware Verification

A software product line is a set of software products that are distinguished in terms of features (i.e., end-user--visible units of behavior). Feature interactions ---situations in which the combination of features leads to emergent and possibly critical behavior--- are a major source of failures in software product lines. We explore how feature-aware verification can improve the automatic detection of feature interactions in software product lines. Feature-aware verification uses product-line verification techniques and supports the specification of feature properties along with the features in separate and composable units. It integrates the technique of variability encoding to verify a product line without generating and checking a possibly exponential number of feature combinations. We developed the tool suite SPLverifier for feature-aware verification, which is based on standard model-checking technology. We applied it to an e-mail system that incorporates domain knowledge of AT&T. We found that feature interactions can be detected automatically based on specifications that have only feature-local knowledge, and that variability encoding significantly improves the verification performance when proving the absence of interactions.Comment: 12 pages, 9 figures, 1 tabl

Evaluation of a tool for Java structural specification checking

Although a number of tools for evaluating Java code functionality and style exist, little work has been done in a distance learning context on automated marking of Java programs with respect to structural specifications. Such automated checks support human markers in assessing students’ work and evaluating their own marking; online automated marking; students checking code before submitting it for marking; and question setters evaluating the completeness of questions set. This project developed and evaluated a prototype tool that performs an automated check of a Java program’s correctness with respect to a structural specification. Questionnaires and interviews were used to gather feedback on the usefulness of the tool as a marking aid to humans, and on its potential usefulness to students for self-assessment when working on their assignments. Markers were asked to compare the usefulness of structural specification testing as compared to other kinds of support, including syntax error assistance, style checking and functionality testing. Initial results suggest that most markers using the structural specification checking tool found it to be useful, and some reported that it increased their accuracy in marking. Reasons for not using the tool included lack of time and the simplicity of the assignment it was trialled on. Some reservations were expressed about reliance on tools for assessment, both for markers and for students. The need for advice on incorporating tools in marking workflow is suggested