Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Unifying Framework for Dynamic Monitoring and a Taxonomy of Optimizations

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation: Engineering Principles (ISoLA 2020)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 12477))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Reducing the performance overhead of run-time monitoring is crucial for making it affordable to enforce more complex requirements than simple security or safety properties. Optimizations for reducing the overhead are becoming increasingly sophisticated themselves, which makes it mandatory to verify that they preserve what shall be enforced.

In this article, we propose a taxonomy for such optimizations and use it to develop a classification of existing optimization techniques. Moreover, we propose a semantic framework for modeling run-time monitors that provides a suitable basis both, for verifying that optimizations preserve reliable enforcement and for analytically assessing the performance gain.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Recall from Definition 9 that a monitor is total in \({{\varGamma }}_{ o }\).

  2. 2.

    Recall that a watch-dog cannot reach a final state when events in \({ \Gamma }_{ o }\) occur.

  3. 3.

    In such a situation, one might be tempted to instead apply the more powerful optimization ROS, but this, in general, does not guarantee the preservation of \( prop _{ pol }^{E}\).

  4. 4.

    Recall that we also focused on truncation in Sects. 3–5.

References

  1. Ahrendt, W., Beckert, B., Bubel, R., Hähnle, R., Schmitt, P.H., Ulbrich, M. (eds.): Deductive Software Verification - The KeY Book - From Theory to Practice. LNCS, vol. 10001. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49812-6

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Ahrendt, W., Chimento, J.M., Pace, G.J., Schneider, G.: Verifying data- and control-oriented properties combining static and runtime verification: theory and tools. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 51(1), 200–265 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ahrendt, W., Pace, G.J., Schneider, G.: A unified approach for static and runtime verification: framework and applications. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2012. LNCS, vol. 7609, pp. 312–326. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34026-0_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Alpern, B., Schneider, F.B.: Defining liveness. Inf. Process. Lett. 21, 181–185 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Azzopardi, S., Colombo, C., Pace, G.J.: Control-flow residual analysis for symbolic automata. In: Pre- and Post-Deployment Verification Techniques. EPTCS, vol. 254, pp. 29–43 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Azzopardi, S., Colombo, C., Pace, G.J.: CLARVA: model-based residual verification of Java programs. In: Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development, pp. 352–359 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bartocci, E., Falcone, Y. (eds.): Lectures on Runtime Verification Introductory and Advanced Topics. LNCS, vol. 10457. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75632-5

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Basin, D.A., Jugé, V., Klaedtke, F., Zalinescu, E.: Enforceable security policies revisited. Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 16(1), 3:1–3:26 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Blackburn, S.M., Garner, R., Hoffmann, C., Khan, A.M., McKinley, K.S., Bentzur, R., Diwan, A., Feinberg, D., Frampton, D., Guyer, S.Z., Hirzel, M., Hosking, A.L., Jump, M., Lee, H.B., Moss, J.E.B., Phansalkar, A., Stefanovic, D., VanDrunen, T., von Dincklage, D., Wiedermann, B.: The DaCapo benchmarks: Java benchmarking development and analysis. In: Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, pp. 169–190 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bodden, E.: Efficient hybrid typestate analysis by determining continuation-equivalent states. In: International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 5–14 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bodden, E., Hendren, L.J.: The Clara framework for hybrid typestate analysis. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 14(3), 307–326 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bodden, E., Hendren, L., Lam, P., Lhoták, O., Naeem, N.A.: Collaborative runtime verification with tracematches. In: Sokolsky, O., Taşıran, S. (eds.) RV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4839, pp. 22–37. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77395-5_3

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Colombo, C., Pace, G.J., Schneider, G.: Dynamic event-based runtime monitoring of real-time and contextual properties. In: Cofer, D., Fantechi, A. (eds.) FMICS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5596, pp. 135–149. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03240-0_13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Delgado, N., Gates, A.Q., Roach, S.: A taxonomy and catalog of runtime software-fault monitoring tools. Trans. Softw. Eng. 30(12), 859–872 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Drábik, P., Martinelli, F., Morisset, C.: Cost-aware runtime enforcement of security policies. In: Jøsang, A., Samarati, P., Petrocchi, M. (eds.) STM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7783, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38004-4_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Dwyer, M.B., Diep, M., Elbaum, S.G.: Reducing the cost of path property monitoring through sampling. In: Automated Software Engineering, pp. 228–237 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dwyer, M.B., Kinneer, A., Elbaum, S.G.: Adaptive online program analysis. In: International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 220–229 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dwyer, M.B., Purandare, R.: Residual dynamic typestate analysis exploiting static analysis: results to reformulate and reduce the cost of dynamic analysis. In: Automated Software Engineering, pp. 124–133 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Erlingsson, U., Schneider, F.B.: SASI enforcement of security policies: a retrospective. In: New Security Paradigms, pp. 87–95 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Falcone, Y., Krstić, S., Reger, G., Traytel, D.: A taxonomy for classifying runtime verification tools. In: Colombo, C., Leucker, M. (eds.) RV 2018. LNCS, vol. 11237, pp. 241–262. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03769-7_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Fei, L., Midkiff, S.P.: Artemis: practical runtime monitoring of applications for execution anomalies. In: Programming Language Design and Implementation, pp. 84–95 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fredrikson, M., et al.: Efficient runtime policy enforcement using counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In: Madhusudan, P., Seshia, S.A. (eds.) CAV 2012. LNCS, vol. 7358, pp. 548–563. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31424-7_39

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Gay, R., Hu, J., Mantel, H.: CliSeAu: securing distributed Java programs by cooperative dynamic enforcement. In: Prakash, A., Shyamasundar, R. (eds.) ICISS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8880, pp. 378–398. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13841-1_21

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Jones, N.D.: An introduction to partial evaluation. ACM Comput. Surv. 28(3), 480–503 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kao, J., Rampersad, N., Shallit, J.O.: On NFAs where all states are final, initial, or both. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 410(47–49), 5010–5021 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Kleene, S.C.: Representation of events in nerve nets and finite automata. In: Automata Studies, pp. 3–41 (1956)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Leucker, M.: Teaching runtime verification. In: Khurshid, S., Sen, K. (eds.) RV 2011. LNCS, vol. 7186, pp. 34–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29860-8_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: A brief account of runtime verification. J. Logic Algebraic Program. 78(5), 293–303 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ligatti, J., Bauer, L., Walker, D.: Edit automata: enforcement mechanisms for run-time security policies. J. Inf. Secur. 4(1–2), 2–16 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Purandare, R., Dwyer, M.B., Elbaum, S.G.: Monitor optimization via stutter-equivalent loop transformation. In: Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, pp. 270–285 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Purandare, R., Dwyer, M.B., Elbaum, S.G.: Optimizing monitoring of finite state properties through monitor compaction. In: Software Testing and Analysis, pp. 280–290 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rabiser, R., Guinea, S., Vierhauser, M., Baresi, L., Grünbacher, P.: A comparison framework for runtime monitoring approaches. J. Syst. Softw. 125, 309–321 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Schneider, F.B.: Enforceable security policies. Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 3(1), 30–50 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wang, C., Chen, Z., Mao, X.: Optimizing nop-shadows typestate analysis by filtering interferential configurations. In: Legay, A., Bensalem, S. (eds.) RV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8174, pp. 269–284. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40787-1_16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Wonisch, D., Schremmer, A., Wehrheim, H.: Zero overhead runtime monitoring. In: Hierons, R.M., Merayo, M.G., Bravetti, M. (eds.) SEFM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8137, pp. 244–258. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40561-7_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Wu, C.W.W., Kumar, D., Bonakdarpour, B., Fischmeister, S.: Reducing monitoring overhead by integrating event- and time-triggered techniques. In: Legay, A., Bensalem, S. (eds.) RV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8174, pp. 304–321. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40787-1_18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Yamagata, Y., et al.: Runtime monitoring for concurrent systems. In: Falcone, Y., Sánchez, C. (eds.) RV 2016. LNCS, vol. 10012, pp. 386–403. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46982-9_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Barbara Sprick for helpful discussions. This work was funded by the Hessian LOEWE initiative within the Software-Factory 4.0 project and by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the Hessen State Ministry for Higher Education, Research and the Arts within their joint support of the National Research Center for Applied Cybersecurity ATHENE.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, TU Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany

    Marie-Christine Jakobs & Heiko Mantel

Authors
  1. Marie-Christine Jakobs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heiko Mantel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Marie-Christine Jakobs or Heiko Mantel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Limerick and Lero, Limerick, Ireland

    Tiziana Margaria

  2. TU Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany

    Bernhard Steffen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Jakobs, MC., Mantel, H. (2020). A Unifying Framework for Dynamic Monitoring and a Taxonomy of Optimizations. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds) Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation: Engineering Principles. ISoLA 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12477. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61470-6_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61470-6_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-61469-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-61470-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation