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

Authors Hubert Comon-Lundh, Véronique Cortier



PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.STACS.2011.29.pdf
  • Filesize: 0.6 MB
  • 16 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Hubert Comon-Lundh
Véronique Cortier

Cite AsGet BibTex

Hubert Comon-Lundh and Véronique Cortier. How to prove security of communication protocols? A discussion on the soundness of formal models w.r.t. computational ones.. In 28th International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS 2011). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 9, pp. 29-44, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2011)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.STACS.2011.29

Abstract

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.
Keywords
  • verification
  • security
  • cryptography

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
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