About models of security protocols

In this paper, mostly consisting of definitions, we revisit the models of security protocols: we show that the symbolic and the computational models (as well as others) are instances of a same generic model. Our definitions are also parametrized by the security primitives, the notion of attacker and, to some extent, the process calculus

How to prove security of communication protocols? A discussion on the soundness of formal models w.r.t. computational ones.

Security protocols are short programs that aim at securing communication over a public network. Their design is known to be error-prone with flaws found years later. That is why they deserve a careful security analysis, with rigorous proofs. Two main lines of research have been (independently) developed to analyse the security of protocols. On the one hand, formal methods provide with symbolic models and often automatic proofs. On the other hand, cryptographic models propose a tighter modeling but proofs are more difficult to write and to check. An approach developed during the last decade consists in bridging the two approaches, showing that symbolic models are sound w.r.t. symbolic ones, yielding strong security guarantees using automatic tools. These results have been developed for several cryptographic primitives (e.g. symmetric and asymmetric encryption, signatures, hash) and security properties. While proving soundness of symbolic models is a very promising approach, several technical details are often not satisfactory. Focusing on symmetric encryption, we describe the difficulties and limitations of the available results

Trace Equivalence Decision: Negative Tests and Non-determinism

We consider security properties of cryptographic protocols that can be modeled using the notion of trace equivalence. The notion of equivalence is crucial when specifying privacy-type properties, like anonymity, vote-privacy, and unlinkability. In this paper, we give a calculus that is close to the applied pi calculus and that allows one to capture most existing protocols that rely on classical cryptographic primitives. First, we propose a symbolic semantics for our calculus relying on constraint systems to represent infinite sets of possible traces, and we reduce the decidability of trace equivalence to deciding a notion of symbolic equivalence between sets of constraint systems. Second, we develop an algorithm allowing us to decide whether two sets of constraint systems are in symbolic equivalence or not. Altogether, this yields the first decidability result of trace equivalence for a general class of processes that may involve else branches and/or private channels (for a bounded number of sessions)

Deciding equivalence-based properties using constraint solving

Formal methods have proved their usefulness for analyzing the security of protocols. Most existing results focus on trace properties like secrecy or authentication. There are however several security properties, which cannot be defined (or cannot be naturally defined) as trace properties and require a notion of behavioural equivalence. Typical examples are anonymity, privacy related properties or statements closer to security properties used in cryptography. In this paper, we consider three notions of equivalence defined in the applied pi calculus: observational equivalence, may-testing equivalence, and trace equivalence. First, we study the relationship between these three notions. We show that for determinate processes, observational equivalence actually coincides with trace equivalence, a notion simpler to reason with. We exhibit a large class of determinate processes, called simple processes, that capture most existing protocols and cryptographic primitives. While trace equivalence and may-testing equivalence seem very similar, we show that may-testing equivalence is actually strictly stronger than trace equivalence. We prove that the two notions coincide for image-finite processes, such as processes without replication. Second, we reduce the decidability of trace equivalence (for finite processes) to deciding symbolic equivalence between sets of constraint systems. For simple processes without replication and with trivial else branches, it turns out that it is actually sufficient to decide symbolic equivalence between pairs of positive constraint systems. Thanks to this reduction and relying on a result first proved by M. Baudet, this yields the first decidability result of observational equivalence for a general class of equational theories (for processes without else branch nor replication). Moreover, based on another decidability result for deciding equivalence between sets of constraint systems, we get decidability of trace equivalence for processes with else branch for standard primitives

Ground Reducibility is EXPTIME-complete

International audienceWe prove that ground reducibility is EXPTIME-complete in the general case. EXPTIME-hardness is proved by encoding the emptiness problem for the intersection of recognizable tree languages. It is more difficult to show that ground reducibility belongs to DEXPTIME. We associate first an automaton with disequality constraints A(R,t) to a rewrite system R and a term t. This automaton is deterministic and accepts at least one term iff t is not ground reducible by R. The number of states of A(R,t) is O(2^|R|x|t|) and the size of its constraints is polynomial in the size of R, t. Then we prove some new pumping lemmas, using a total ordering on the computations of the automaton. Thanks to these lemmas, we can show that emptiness for an automaton with disequality constraints can be decided in a time which is polynomial in the number of states and exponential in the size of the constraints. Altogether, we get a simply exponential time deterministic algorithm for ground reducibility decision

A procedure for deciding symbolic equivalence between sets of constraint systems

We consider security properties of cryptographic protocols that can be modeled using the notion of trace equivalence. The notion of equivalence is crucial when specifying privacy-type properties, like anonymity, vote-privacy, and unlinkability. Infinite sets of possible traces are symbolically represented using deducibility constraints. We describe an algorithm that decides trace equivalence for protocols that use standard primitives (e.g., signatures, symmetric and asymmetric encryptions) and that can be represented using such constraints. More precisely, we consider symbolic equivalence between sets of constraint systems, and we also consider disequations. Considering sets and disequations is actually crucial to decide trace equivalence for a general class of processes that may involve else branches and/or private channels (for a bounded number of sessions). Our algorithm for deciding symbolic equivalence between sets of constraint systems is implemented and performs well in practice. Unfortunately, it does not scale up well for deciding trace equivalence between processes. This is however the first implemented algorithm deciding trace equivalence on such a large class of processes

Automating Security Analysis: Symbolic Equivalence of Constraint Systems

We consider security properties of cryptographic protocols, that are either trace properties (such as confidentiality or authenticity) or equivalence properties (such as anonymity or strong secrecy). Infinite sets of possible traces are symbolically represented using deducibility constraints. We give a new algorithm that decides the trace equivalence for the traces that are represented using such constraints, in the case of signatures, symmetric and asymmetric encryptions. Our algorithm is implemented and performs well on typical benchmarks. This is the first implemented algorithm, deciding symbolic trace equivalence

Relating two standard notions of secrecy

Two styles of definitions are usually considered to express that a security protocol preserves the confidentiality of a data s. Reachability-based secrecy means that s should never be disclosed while equivalence-based secrecy states that two executions of a protocol with distinct instances for s should be indistinguishable to an attacker. Although the second formulation ensures a higher level of security and is closer to cryptographic notions of secrecy, decidability results and automatic tools have mainly focused on the first definition so far. This paper initiates a systematic investigation of the situations where syntactic secrecy entails strong secrecy. We show that in the passive case, reachability-based secrecy actually implies equivalence-based secrecy for digital signatures, symmetric and asymmetric encryption provided that the primitives are probabilistic. For active adversaries, we provide sufficient (and rather tight) conditions on the protocol for this implication to hold.Comment: 29 pages, published in LMC