A Framework for Game-Based Security Proofs

  • David Nowak
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4861)

Abstract

To be accepted, a cryptographic scheme must come with a proof that it satisfies some standard security properties. However, because cryptographic schemes are based on non-trivial mathematics, proofs are error-prone and difficult to check. The main contributions of this paper are a refinement of the game-based approach to security proofs, and its implementation on top of the proof assistant Coq. The proof assistant checks that the proof is correct and deals with the mundane part of the proof. An interesting feature of our framework is that our proofs are formal enough to be mechanically checked, but still readable enough to be humanly checked. We illustrate the use of our framework by proving in a systematic way the so-called semantic security of the encryption scheme Elgamal and its hashed version.

Keywords

formal verification game proof assistant security 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Affeldt, R., Tanaka, M., Marti, N.: Formal proof of provable security by game-playing in a proof assistant. In: ProvSec 2007. LNCS, vol. 4784, pp. 151–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Audebaud, P., Paulin-Mohring, C.: Proofs of randomized algorithms in Coq. In: Uustalu, T. (ed.) MPC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4014, pp. 49–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barthe, G., Tarento, S.: A machine-checked formalization of the random oracle model. In: Filliâtre, J.-C., Paulin-Mohring, C., Werner, B. (eds.) TYPES 2004. LNCS, vol. 3839, pp. 33–49. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bellare, M., Rogaway, P.: The exact security of digital signatures - how to sign with RSA and Rabin. In: Maurer, U.M. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1996. LNCS, vol. 1070, pp. 399–416. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bellare, M., Rogaway, P.: Code-based game-playing proofs and the security of triple encryption. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2004/331 (2004), http://eprint.iacr.org/
  6. 6.
    Blanchet, B., Pointcheval, D.: Automated security proofs with sequences of games. In: Dwork, C. (ed.) CRYPTO 2006. LNCS, vol. 4117, pp. 537–554. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blanchet, B., Pointcheval, D.: Automated security proofs with sequences of games. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2006/069 (2006), http://eprint.iacr.org/
  8. 8.
    Boneh, D.: The Decision Diffie-Hellman problem. In: Buhler, J.P. (ed.) Algorithmic Number Theory. LNCS, vol. 1423, pp. 48–63. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Corin, R., denHartog, J.: A probabilistic Hoare-style logic for game-based cryptographic proofs. In: Bugliesi, M., Preneel, B., Sassone, V., Wegener, I. (eds.) ICALP 2006. LNCS, vol. 4052, pp. 252–263. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Diffie, W., Hellman, M.E.: New directions in cryptography. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory IT-22(6), 644–654 (1976)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dolev, D., Yao, A.C.-C.: On the security of public key protocols (extended abstract). In: FOCS, pp. 350–357. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1981)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Elgamal, T.: A public key cryptosystem and a signature scheme based on discrete logarithms. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 31(4), 469–472 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goldwasser, S., Micali, S.: Probabilistic encryption and how to play mental poker keeping secret all partial information. In: STOC, pp. 365–377. ACM Press, New York (1982)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goldwasser, S., Micali, S.: Probabilistic encryption. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 28(2), 270–299 (1984)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Halevi, S.: A plausible approach to computer-aided cryptographic proofs. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2005/181 (2005), http://eprint.iacr.org/
  16. 16.
    Mitchell, J.C., Ramanathan, A., Scedrov, A., Teague, V.: A probabilistic polynomial-time process calculus for the analysis of cryptographic protocols. Theor. Comput. Sci. 353(1-3), 118–164 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moggi, E.: Notions of computation and monads. Information and Computation 93(1), 55–92 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nowak, D.: A framework for game-based security proofs. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2007/199 (2007), http://eprint.iacr.org/
  19. 19.
    Ramsey, N., Pfeffer, A.: Stochastic lambda calculus and monads of probability distributions. In: POPL, pp. 154–165 (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shoup, V.: Sequences of games: a tool for taming complexity in security proofs. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2004/332 (2004), http://eprint.iacr.org/
  21. 21.
    Tsiounis, Y., Yung, M.: On the security of ElGamal based encryption. In: Imai, H., Zheng, Y. (eds.) PKC 1998. LNCS, vol. 1431, pp. 117–134. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wadler, P.: Comprehending monads. In: LISP and Functional Programming, pp. 61–78 (1990)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Nowak
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Center for Information Security, AIST, TokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations