2 Search Results for "Jakobsson, Arvid"

Document
DOI: 10.4230/OASIcs.FMBC.2022.2
Finding Smart Contract Vulnerabilities with ConCert’s Property-Based Testing Framework

Authors: Mikkel Milo, Eske Hoy Nielsen, Danil Annenkov, and Bas Spitters

Published in: OASIcs, Volume 105, 4th International Workshop on Formal Methods for Blockchains (FMBC 2022)

Abstract
We provide three detailed case studies of vulnerabilities in smart contracts, and show how property based testing would have found them: 1. the Dexter1 token exchange; 2. the iToken; 3. the ICO of Brave’s BAT token. The last example is, in fact, new, and was missed in the auditing process. We have implemented this testing in ConCert, a general executable model/specification of smart contract execution in the Coq proof assistant. ConCert contracts can be used to generate verified smart contracts in Tezos' LIGO and Concordium’s rust language. We thus show the effectiveness of combining formal verification and property-based testing of smart contracts.
Cite as

Mikkel Milo, Eske Hoy Nielsen, Danil Annenkov, and Bas Spitters. Finding Smart Contract Vulnerabilities with ConCert’s Property-Based Testing Framework. In 4th International Workshop on Formal Methods for Blockchains (FMBC 2022). Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs), Volume 105, pp. 2:1-2:13, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2022)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{milo_et_al:OASIcs.FMBC.2022.2,
  author =	{Milo, Mikkel and Nielsen, Eske Hoy and Annenkov, Danil and Spitters, Bas},
  title =	{{Finding Smart Contract Vulnerabilities with ConCert’s Property-Based Testing Framework}},
  booktitle =	{4th International Workshop on Formal Methods for Blockchains (FMBC 2022)},
  pages =	{2:1--2:13},
  series =	{Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-250-1},
  ISSN =	{2190-6807},
  year =	{2022},
  volume =	{105},
  editor =	{Dargaye, Zaynah and Schneidewind, Clara},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops-dev.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/OASIcs.FMBC.2022.2},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-171834},
  doi =		{10.4230/OASIcs.FMBC.2022.2},
  annote =	{Keywords: Smart Contracts, Formal Verification, Property-Based Testing, Coq}
}
Document
DOI: 10.4230/OASIcs.FMBC.2021.2
Money Grows on (Proof-)Trees: The Formal FA1.2 Ledger Standard

Authors: Murdoch J. Gabbay, Arvid Jakobsson, and Kristina Sojakova

Published in: OASIcs, Volume 95, 3rd International Workshop on Formal Methods for Blockchains (FMBC 2021)

Abstract
Once you have invented digital money, you may need a ledger to track who owns what - along with an interface to that ledger so that users of your money can transact. On the Tezos blockchain this implies: a smart contract (distributed program), storing in its state a ledger to map owner addresses to token quantities; along with standardised entrypoints to query and transact on accounts. A bank does a similar job - it maps account numbers to account quantities and permits users to transact - but in return the bank demands trust, it incurs expense to maintain a centralised server and staff, it uses a proprietary interface ... and it may speculate using your money and/or display rent-seeking behaviour. A blockchain ledger is by design decentralised, inexpensive, open, and it won't just decide to bet your tokens on risky derivatives (unless you want it to). The FA1.2 standard is an open standard for ledger-keeping smart contracts on the Tezos blockchain. Several FA1.2 implementations already exist. Or do they? Is the standard sensible and complete? Are the implementations correct? And what are they implementations of? The FA1.2 standard is written in English, a specification language favoured by wet human brains but notorious for its incompleteness and ambiguity when rendered into dry and unforgiving code. In this paper we report on a formalisation of the FA1.2 standard as a Coq specification, and on a formal verification of three FA1.2-compliant smart contracts with respect to that specification. Errors were found and ambiguities were resolved; but also, there now exists a mathematically precise and battle-tested specification of the FA1.2 ledger standard. We will describe FA1.2 itself, outline the structure of the Coq theories - which in itself captures some non-trivial and novel design decisions of the development - and review the detailed verification of the implementations.
Cite as

Murdoch J. Gabbay, Arvid Jakobsson, and Kristina Sojakova. Money Grows on (Proof-)Trees: The Formal FA1.2 Ledger Standard. In 3rd International Workshop on Formal Methods for Blockchains (FMBC 2021). Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs), Volume 95, pp. 2:1-2:14, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2021)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{gabbay_et_al:OASIcs.FMBC.2021.2,
  author =	{Gabbay, Murdoch J. and Jakobsson, Arvid and Sojakova, Kristina},
  title =	{{Money Grows on (Proof-)Trees: The Formal FA1.2 Ledger Standard}},
  booktitle =	{3rd International Workshop on Formal Methods for Blockchains (FMBC 2021)},
  pages =	{2:1--2:14},
  series =	{Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-209-9},
  ISSN =	{2190-6807},
  year =	{2021},
  volume =	{95},
  editor =	{Bernardo, Bruno and Marmsoler, Diego},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops-dev.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/OASIcs.FMBC.2021.2},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-154267},
  doi =		{10.4230/OASIcs.FMBC.2021.2},
  annote =	{Keywords: Distributed ledger, smart contracts, Coq, formal verification, blockchain}
}
  • Refine by Author
  • 1 Annenkov, Danil
  • 1 Gabbay, Murdoch J.
  • 1 Jakobsson, Arvid
  • 1 Milo, Mikkel
  • 1 Nielsen, Eske Hoy
  • Show More...

  • Refine by Classification
  • 1 Social and professional topics → Quality assurance
  • 1 Software and its engineering → Formal methods
  • 1 Software and its engineering → Formal software verification
  • 1 Software and its engineering → Software verification and validation
  • 1 Theory of computation → Program verification

  • Refine by Keyword
  • 2 Coq
  • 1 Distributed ledger
  • 1 Formal Verification
  • 1 Property-Based Testing
  • 1 Smart Contracts
  • Show More...

  • Refine by Type
  • 2 document

  • Refine by Publication Year
  • 1 2021
  • 1 2022

Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH Imprint Privacy Contact