Advertisement

A Dynamic Logic for the Formal Verification ofJava Card Programs

  • Bernhard Beckert
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2041)

Abstract

In this paper, we define a program logic (an instance of Dynamic Logic) for formalising properties of Java Card programs, and we give a sequent calculus for formally verifying such properties. The purpose of this work is to provide a framework for software verification that can be integrated into real-world software development processes.

Keywords

Smart Card Object Constraint Language Logical Variable Program Variable Sequent Calculus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    W. Ahrendt, T. Baar, B. Beckert, M. Giese, E. Habermalz, R. Hähnle, W. Menzel, and P. H. Schmitt. The KeY approach: Integrating object oriented design and formal verification. In M. Ojeda-Aciego, I. P. de Guzman, G. Brewka, and L. M. Pereira, editors, Proceedings, Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA), Malaga, Spain, LNCS 1919. Springer, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Alves-Foss, editor. Formal Syntax and Semantics ofJava. LNCS 1523. Springer, 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    K. R. Apt. Ten years of Hoare logic: A survey-part I. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 1981.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    T. Baar. Experiences with the UML/OCL-approach to precise software modeling: A report from practice. Available at i12www.ira.uka.de/~key, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Börger and W. Schulte. A programmer friendly modular definition of the semantics of Java. In Alves-Foss [2], pages 353–404.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. Calcagno, S. Ishtiaq, and P. W. O’Hearn. Semantic analysis of pointer aliasing, allocation and disposal in Hoare logic. In Proceedings, International Conference on Principles and Practice of De clarative Programming, Montreal, Canada. ACM, 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. Clarke and J. M. Wing. Formal methods: State of the art and future directions. ACM Computing Surveys, 28(4):626–643, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. L. Dill and J. Rushby. Acceptance of formal methods: Lessons from hardware design. IEEE Computer, 29(4):23–24, 1996. Part of: Hossein Saiedian (ed.). An Invitation to Formal Methods. Pages 16-30.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Gosling, B. Joy, G. Steele, and G. Bracha. The Java Language Specification. Addison Wesley, second edition, 2000.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. G. Hinchey and J. P. Bowen, editors. Applications ofF ormal Methods. Prentice Hall, 1995.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Huisman and B. Jacobs. Java program verification via a Hoare logic with abrupt termination. In Proceedings, Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE), Berlin, Germany, LNCS 1783. Springer, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Hutter, B. Langenstein, C. Sengler, J. H. Siekmann, and W. Stephan. Deduction in the Verification Support Environment (VSE). In M.-C. Gaudel and J. Woodcock, editors, Proceedings, International Symposium ofF ormal Methods Europe (FME), Oxford, UK, LNCS 1051. Springer, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    B. Jacobs, J. van den Berg, M. Huisman, M. van Berkum, U. Hensel, and H. Tews. Reasoning about Java classes (preliminary report). In Proceedings, Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages and Applications (OOPSLA), pages 329–340. ACM Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Kozen and J. Tiuryn. Logic of programs. In J. van Leeuwen, editor, Handbook ofThe oretical Computer Science, volume B: Formal Models and Semantics, chapter 14, pages 789–840. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Martin and J. J. Odell. Object-Oriented Methods: A Foundation, UML Edition. Prentice-Hall, 1997. 24 B. BeckertGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    T. Nipkow and D. von Oheimb. Machine-checking the Java specification: Proving type safety. In Alves-Foss [2], pages 119–156.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    T. Nipkow, D. von Oheimb, and C. Pusch. µJava: Embedding a programming language in a theorem prover. In F. L. Bauer and R. Steinbrüggen, editors, Foundations ofSe cure Computation. IOS Press, 2000. To appear.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Object Management Group, Inc., Framingham/MA, USA, www.omg.org. OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification, Version 1.3, June 1999.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. Poetzsch-Heffter and P. Müller. A programming logic for sequential Java. In S. D. Swierstra, editor, Proceedings, Programming Languages and Systems (ESOP), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, LNCS 1576, pages 162–176. Springer, 1999.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    W. Reif.The KIV-approach to software verification. In M. Broy and S. Jähnichen, editors, KORSO: Methods, Languages, and Tools for the Construction of Correct Software-Final Report, LNCS 1009. Springer, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    D. von Oheimb. Axiomatic semantics for Javaight. In S. Drossopoulou, S. Eisenbach, B. Jacobs, G. T. Leavens, P. Müller, and A. Poetzsch-Heffter, editors, Proceedings, Formal Techniques for Java Programs, Workshop at ECOOP’00, Cannes, France, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernhard Beckert
    • 1
  1. 1.Komplexit ät und DeduktionssystemeD-76128Universität Karlsruhe Institut für LogikKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations