Advertisement

RV-TheToP: Runtime Verification from Theory to the Industry Practice (Track Introduction)

  • Ezio BartocciEmail author
  • Yliès Falcone
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11247)

Abstract

This paper introduces the RV-TOP track at ISoLA’18. The purpose of the track is to bring together experts on runtime verification and industry practitioners domains to (i) disseminate advanced research topics (ii) disseminate current industrial challenges and (iii) get RV more attractive to industry and usable in additional application domains. The track consists of eight contributed papers presented during three sessions.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the support of the ICT COST Action IC1402 Runtime Verification beyond Monitoring (ARVI).

References

  1. 1.
    Bartocci, E., Bortolussi, L., Nenzi, L.: A temporal logic approach to modular design of synthetic biological circuits. In: Gupta, A., Henzinger, T.A. (eds.) CMSB 2013. LNCS, vol. 8130, pp. 164–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40708-6_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bartocci, E., Bonakdarpour, B., Falcone, Y.: First international competition on software for runtime verification. In: Bonakdarpour, B., Smolka, S.A. (eds.) RV 2014. LNCS, vol. 8734, pp. 1–9. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11164-3_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bartocci, E., Bortolussi, L., Loreti, M., Nenzi, L.: Monitoring mobile and spatially distributed cyber-physical systems. In: Proceedings of the 15th ACM-IEEE International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for System Design, MEMOCODE 2017, pp. 146–155. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bartocci, E., et al.: Specification-based monitoring of cyber-physical systems: a survey on theory, tools and applications. In: Bartocci, E., Falcone, Y. (eds.) Lectures on Runtime Verification. LNCS, vol. 10457, pp. 135–175. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75632-5_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bartocci, E., Falcone, Y.: Runtime verification and enforcement, the (industrial) application perspective (track introduction). In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2016. LNCS, vol. 9953, pp. 333–338. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47169-3_24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bartocci, E., Falcone, Y. (eds.): Lectures on Runtime Verification. LNCS, vol. 10457. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75632-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bartocci, E., et al.: First international competition on runtime verification: rules, benchmarks, tools, and final results of CRV 2014. Int. J. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. 1–40 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10009-017-0454-5
  8. 8.
    Bartocci, E., Falcone, Y., Francalanza, A., Reger, G.: Introduction to runtime verification. In: Bartocci, E., Falcone, Y. (eds.) Lectures on Runtime Verification. LNCS, vol. 10457, pp. 1–33. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75632-5_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bauer, A., Falcone, Y.: Decentralised LTL monitoring. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 48(1–2), 46–93 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bielova, N., Massacci, F.: Iterative enforcement by suppression: towards practical enforcement theories. J. Comput. Secur. 20(1), 51–79 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bonakdarpour, B., Deshmukh, J., Pajic, M.: Opportunities and challenges in monitoring cyber-physical systems security. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2018. LNCS, vol. 11247, pp. 9–18. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Colombo, C., Falcone, Y.: First international summer school on runtime verification - as part of the ArVi COST action 1402. In: Falcone and Sánchez [23], pp. 17–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Colombo, C., Pace, G.: Considering academia-industry projects meta-characteristics in runtime verification design. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2018. LNCS, vol. 11247, pp. 32–41. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dolzhenko, E., Ligatti, J., Reddy, S.: Modeling runtime enforcement with mandatory results automata. Int. J. Inf. Secur. 14(1), 47–60 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Falcone, Y.: You should better enforce than verify. In: Barringer, H., et al. (eds.) RV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6418, pp. 89–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16612-9_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Falcone, Y.: Second international school on runtime verification - as part of the ArVi COST action 1402. In: Proceedings of the Runtime Verification - 18th International Conference, RV 2018, Limassol, Cyprus, 10–13 November 2018, pp. 17–20 (2016, to appear)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Falcone, Y., Fernandez, J., Mounier, L.: What can you verify and enforce at runtime? STTT 14(3), 349–382 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Falcone, Y., Jéron, T., Marchand, H., Pinisetty, S.: Runtime enforcement of regular timed properties by suppressing and delaying events. Syst. Control Lett. 123, 2–41 (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Falcone, Y., Marchand, H.: Enforcement and validation (at runtime) of various notions of opacity. Discret. Event Dyn. Syst. 25(4), 531–570 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Falcone, Y., Mariani, L., Rollet, A., Saha, S.: Runtime failure prevention and reaction. In: Bartocci, E., Falcone, Y. (eds.) Lectures on Runtime Verification. LNCS, vol. 10457, pp. 103–134. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75632-5_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Falcone, Y., Mounier, L., Fernandez, J., Richier, J.: Runtime enforcement monitors: composition, synthesis, and enforcement abilities. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 38(3), 223–262 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Falcone, Y., Ničković, D., Reger, G., Thoma, D.: Second international competition on runtime verification - CRV 15. In: Bartocci, E., Majumdar, R. (eds.) RV 2015. LNCS, vol. 9333, pp. 405–422. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23820-3_27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Falcone, Y., Sánchez, C. (eds.): RV 2016. LNCS, vol. 10012. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46982-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Falcone, Y., Zuck, L.D.: Runtime verification: the application perspective. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2012. LNCS, vol. 7609, pp. 284–291. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34026-0_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Falcone, Y., Zuck, L.D.: Runtime verification: the application perspective. STTT 17(2), 121–123 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gol, E.A., Bartocci, E., Belta, C.: A formal methods approach to pattern synthesis in reaction diffusion systems. In: Proceedings of 53rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, CDC 2014, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 15–17 December 2014, pp. 108–113. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Haghighi, I., Jones, A., Kong, Z., Bartocci, E., Grosu, R., Belta, C.: SpaTeL: a novel spatial-temporal logic and its applications to networked systems. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, HSCC 2015, pp. 189–198. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hallé, S., Khoury, R., Betti, Q., El-Hokayem, A., Falcone, Y.: Decentralized enforcement of document lifecycle constraints. Inf. Syst. 74(Part), 117–135 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hallé, S., Khoury, R., El-Hokayem, A., Falcone, Y.: Decentralized enforcement of artifact lifecycles. In: Matthes, F., Mendling, J., Rinderle-Ma, S. (eds.) 20th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference, EDOC 2016, Vienna, Austria, 5–9 September 2016, pp. 1–10. IEEE Computer Society (2016)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Havelund, K., Peled, D.: BDDs on the run. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2018. LNCS, vol. 11247, pp. 58–69. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Havelund, K., Peled, D.: Efficient runtime verification of first-order temporal properties. In: Gallardo, M.M., Merino, P. (eds.) SPIN 2018. LNCS, vol. 10869, pp. 26–47. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94111-0_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Havelund, K., Peled, D., Ulus, D.: First order temporal logic monitoring with BDDs. In: Proceedings of the 2017 Formal Methods in Computer Aided Design, FMCAD 2017, pp. 116–123. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jaksic, S., Bartocci, E., Grosu, R., Kloibhofer, R., Nguyen, T., Nickovic, D.: From signal temporal logic to FPGA monitors. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for Codesign, MEMOCODE 2015, pp. 218–227. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jakšić, S., Bartocci, E., Grosu, R., Ničković, D.: Quantitative monitoring of STL with edit distance. In: Falcone, Y., Sánchez, C. (eds.) RV 2016. LNCS, vol. 10012, pp. 201–218. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46982-9_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ligatti, J., Bauer, L., Walker, D.: Edit automata: enforcement mechanisms for run-time security policies. Int. J. Inf. Secur. 4(1–2), 2–16 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lourenço, J.M.: Verifying real-world software with contracts for concurrency. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2018. LNCS, vol. 11247, pp. 70–73. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pace, G., Picazo-Sanchez, P., Schneider, G.: Migrating monitors + ABE: a suitable combination for secure IoT? In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2018. LNCS, vol. 11247, pp. 19–24. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pinisetty, S., Falcone, Y., Jéron, T., Marchand, H., Rollet, A., Nguena-Timo, O.: Runtime enforcement of timed properties revisited. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 45(3), 381–422 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Reger, G.: A report of RV-CuBES 2017. In: Reger, G., Havelund, K. (eds.) An International Workshop on Competitions, Usability, Benchmarks, Evaluation, and Standardisation for Runtime Verification Tools, RV-CuBES 2017, Seattle, WA, USA, 15 September 2017, vol. 3, pp. 1–9. Kalpa Publications in Computing, EasyChair (2017)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Reger, G., Hallé, S., Falcone, Y.: Third international competition on runtime verification - CRV 2016. In: Falcone and Sánchez [23], pp. 21–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Renard, M., Rollet, A., Falcone, Y.: Runtime enforcement using büchi games. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGSOFT International SPIN Symposium on Model Checking of Software, pp. 70–79. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Riganelli, O., Micucci, D., Mariani, L.: Increasing the reusability of enforcers with lifecycle events. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2018. LNCS, vol. 11247, pp. 51–57. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Roman, R., Zhou, J., López, J.: On the features and challenges of security and privacy in distributed internet of things. Comput. Netw. 57(10), 2266–2279 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Selyunin, K., et al.: Runtime monitoring with recovery of the SENT communication protocol. In: Majumdar, R., Kunčak, V. (eds.) CAV 2017. LNCS, vol. 10426, pp. 336–355. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63387-9_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Villazon, A., Sun, H., Binder, W.: Capturing inter-process communication for runtime verification on Android. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2018. LNCS, vol. 11247, pp. 25–31. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zhang, T., Eakman, G., Sokolsky, O., Lee, I.: Flexible monitor deployment for runtime verification of large scale software. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) ISoLA 2018. LNCS, vol. 11247, pp. 42–50. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria
  2. 2.Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Inria, LIGGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations