Compiling symbolic attacks to protocol implementation tests

Recently efficient model-checking tools have been developed to find flaws in security protocols specifications. These flaws can be interpreted as potential attacks scenarios but the feasability of these scenarios need to be confirmed at the implementation level. However, bridging the gap between an abstract attack scenario derived from a specification and a penetration test on real implementations of a protocol is still an open issue. This work investigates an architecture for automatically generating abstract attacks and converting them to concrete tests on protocol implementations. In particular we aim to improve previously proposed blackbox testing methods in order to discover automatically new attacks and vulnerabilities. As a proof of concept we have experimented our proposed architecture to detect a renegotiation vulnerability on some implementations of SSL/TLS, a protocol widely used for securing electronic transactions.Comment: In Proceedings SCSS 2012, arXiv:1307.802

Test generation from P systems using model checking

This paper presents some testing approaches based on model checking and using different testing criteria. First, test sets are built from different Kripke structure representations. Second, various rule coverage criteria for transitional, non-deterministic, cell-like P systems, are considered in order to generate adequate test sets. Rule based coverage criteria (simple rule coverage, context-dependent rule coverage and variants) are defined and, for each criterion, a set of LTL (Linear Temporal Logic) formulas is provided. A codification of a P system as a Kripke structure and the sets of LTL properties are used in test generation: for each criterion, test cases are obtained from the counterexamples of the associated LTL formulas, which are automatically generated from the Kripke structure codification of the P system. The method is illustrated with an implementation using a specific model checker, NuSMV. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Your Proof Fails? Testing Helps to Find the Reason

Applying deductive verification to formally prove that a program respects its formal specification is a very complex and time-consuming task due in particular to the lack of feedback in case of proof failures. Along with a non-compliance between the code and its specification (due to an error in at least one of them), possible reasons of a proof failure include a missing or too weak specification for a called function or a loop, and lack of time or simply incapacity of the prover to finish a particular proof. This work proposes a new methodology where test generation helps to identify the reason of a proof failure and to exhibit a counter-example clearly illustrating the issue. We describe how to transform an annotated C program into C code suitable for testing and illustrate the benefits of the method on comprehensive examples. The method has been implemented in STADY, a plugin of the software analysis platform FRAMA-C. Initial experiments show that detecting non-compliances and contract weaknesses allows to precisely diagnose most proof failures.Comment: 11 pages, 10 figure

Automated unique input output sequence generation for conformance testing of FSMs

This paper describes a method for automatically generating unique input output (UIO) sequences for FSM conformance testing. UIOs are used in conformance testing to verify the end state of a transition sequence. UIO sequence generation is represented as a search problem and genetic algorithms are used to search this space. Empirical evidence indicates that the proposed method yields considerably better (up to 62% better) results compared with random UIO sequence generation

Using formal methods to support testing

Formal methods and testing are two important approaches that assist in the development of high quality software. While traditionally these approaches have been seen as rivals, in recent years a new consensus has developed in which they are seen as complementary. This article reviews the state of the art regarding ways in which the presence of a formal specification can be used to assist testing

Towards Symbolic Model-Based Mutation Testing: Combining Reachability and Refinement Checking

Model-based mutation testing uses altered test models to derive test cases that are able to reveal whether a modelled fault has been implemented. This requires conformance checking between the original and the mutated model. This paper presents an approach for symbolic conformance checking of action systems, which are well-suited to specify reactive systems. We also consider nondeterminism in our models. Hence, we do not check for equivalence, but for refinement. We encode the transition relation as well as the conformance relation as a constraint satisfaction problem and use a constraint solver in our reachability and refinement checking algorithms. Explicit conformance checking techniques often face state space explosion. First experimental evaluations show that our approach has potential to outperform explicit conformance checkers.Comment: In Proceedings MBT 2012, arXiv:1202.582

Comparing test sets and criteria in the presence of test hypotheses and fault domains

A number of authors have considered the problem of comparing test sets and criteria. Ideally test sets are compared using a preorder with the property that test set T1 is at least as strong as T2 if whenever T2 determines that an implementation p is faulty, T1 will also determine that p is faulty. This notion can be extended to test criteria. However, it has been noted that very few test sets and criteria are comparable under such an ordering; instead orderings are based on weaker properties such as subsumes. This paper explores an alternative approach, in which comparisons are made in the presence of a test hypothesis or fault domain. This approach allows strong statements about fault detecting ability to be made and yet for a number of test sets and criteria to be comparable. It may also drive incremental test generation