Advertisement

Authentication Primitives for Protocol Specifications

  • Chiara Bodei
  • Pierpaolo Degano
  • Riccardo Focardi
  • Corrado Priami
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2763)

Abstract

We advocate here the use of two authentication primitives we recently propose in a calculus for distributed systems, as a further instrument for programmers interested in authentication. These primitives offer a way of abstracting from various specifications of authentication and obtaining idealized protocols “secure by construction”. We can consequently prove that a cryptographic protocol is the correct implementation of the corresponding abstract protocol; when the proof fails, reasoning on the abstract specification may drive to the correct implementation.

Keywords

Security Protocol Message Exchange Parallel Composition Cryptographic Protocol Correct Implementation 
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.
    Abadi, M., Gordon, A.D.: A Calculus for Cryptographic Protocols: The Spi Calculus. Information and Computation 148(1), 1–70 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abadi, M.: Secrecy by Typing In Security protocols. Journal of the ACM 5(46), 18–36 (1999)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abadi, M., Fournet, C., Gonthier, G.: Authentication Primitives and their compilation. In: Proceedings of Principles of Programming Languages (POPL 2000), pp. 302–315. ACM Press, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bodei, C., Degano, P., Focardi, R., Priami, C.: Primitives for Authentication in Process Algebras. Theoretical Computer Science 283(2), 271–304 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bodei, C., Degano, P., Priami, C.: Names of the π-Calculus Agents Handled Locally. Theoretical Computer Science 253(2), 155–184 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bodei, C., Degano, P., Focardi, R., Priami, C.: Authentication via Localized Names. In: Proceedings of the 12th Computer Security Foundation Workshop (CSFW12), pp. 98–110. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boreale, M., De Nicola, R.: Testing equivalence for mobile processes. Information and Computation 120(2), 279–303 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burrows, M., Abadi, M., Needham, R.: A Logic of Authentication. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 18–36 (February 1990)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    National Bureau of Standards. Data Encryption Standard (DES). FIPS Publication 46 (1977)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Nicola, R., Hennessy, M.C.B.: Testing equivalence for processes. Theoretical Computer Science 34, 83–133 (1984)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Durante, A., Focardi, R., Gorrieri, R.: A Compiler for Analysing Cryptographic Protocols Using Non-Interference. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 9(4), 488–528 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Degano, P., Priami, C.: Enhanced Operational Semantics: A Tool for Describing and Analysing Concurrent Systems. To appear in ACM Computing SurveysGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Degano, P., Priami, C.: Non Interleaving Semantics for Mobile Processes. Theoretical Computer Science 216, 237–270 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fábrega, F.J.T., Herzog, J.C., Guttman, J.D.: Strand spaces: Why is a security protocol correct? In: Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 160–171. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Focardi, R., Gorrieri, R., Martinelli, F.: Message authentication through non-interference. In: Rus, T. (ed.) AMAST 2000. LNCS, vol. 1816, pp. 258–272. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Focardi, R., Gorrieri, R., Martinelli, F.: Non Interference for the Analysis of Cryptographic Protocols. In: Welzl, E., Montanari, U., Rolim, J.D.P. (eds.) ICALP 2000. LNCS, vol. 1853, p. 354. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Focardi, R., Martinelli, F.: A Uniform Approach for the Definition of Security Properties. In: Wing, J.M., Woodcock, J.C.P., Davies, J. (eds.) FM 1999. LNCS, vol. 1708, pp. 794–813. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Focardi, R., Ghelli, A., Gorrieri, R.: Using Non Interference for the Analysis of Security Protocols. In: Proceedings of the DIMACS Workshop on Design and Formal Verification of Security Protocols, DIMACS Center, Rutgers University (1997)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thayer, R., Doraswamy, N., Glenn, R.: RFC 2411: IP security document roadmap (November 1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    International Organization for Standardization. Information technology – Security techniques – Entity authentication mechanism; Part 1: General model. ISO/IEC 9798–1, Second Edition (September 1991)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lowe, G.: A Hierarchy of Authentication Specification. In: Proceedings of the 10th Computer Security Foundation Workshop (CSFW10). IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lowe, G.: Breaking and Fixing the Needham-Schroeder Public-key Protocol using FDR. In: Margaria, T., Steffen, B. (eds.) TACAS 1996. LNCS, vol. 1055, pp. 146–166. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kemmerer, R., Meadows, C., Millen, J.: Three systems for cryptographic protocol analysis. J. Cryptology 7(2), 79–130 (1994)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Milner, R., Parrow, J., Walker, D.: A Calculus of Mobile Processes (I and II). Information and Computation 100(1), 1–77 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mitchell, J.C., Mitchell, M., Stern, U.: Automated Analysis of Cryptographic Protocols Using Murφ. In: Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, pp. 141–153. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sangiorgi, D.: Expressing Mobility in Process Algebras: First-Order and Higher-Order Paradigms. PhD Thesis. University of Edinburgh (1992)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schneider, S.: Verifying authentication protocols in CSP. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 24(9) (September 1998)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schneier, B.: Applied Cryptography, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Chichester (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chiara Bodei
    • 1
  • Pierpaolo Degano
    • 1
  • Riccardo Focardi
    • 2
  • Corrado Priami
    • 3
  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversità di PisaPisaItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversità Ca’ Foscari di VeneziaVeneziaItaly
  3. 3.Dipartimento di Informatica e TelecomunicazioniUniversità di TrentoPovo (TN)Italy

Personalised recommendations