Advertisement

A Concept-Driven Construction of the Mondex Protocol Using Three Refinements

  • Gerhard Schellhorn
  • Richard Banach
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5238)

Abstract

The Mondex case study concerns the formal development and verification of an electronic purse protocol. Several groups have worked on its specification and mechanical verification, their solutions being (as were ours previously), either one big step or several steps motivated by the task’s complexity. A new solution is presented that is structured into three refinements, motivated by the three concepts underlying Mondex: a message protocol to transfer money over a lossy medium, protection against replay attacks, and uniqueness of transfers using sequence numbers. We also give an improved proof technique based on our theoretical results on verifying interleaved systems.

Keywords

Replay Attack Dynamic Logic Proof Obligation Simulation Relation Protocol Step 
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.
    MasterCard International Inc.: Mondex, http://www.mondex.com
  2. 2.
    UK ITSEC Certification Body: UK ITSEC Scheme Certification Report No. P129 MONDEX Purse. Technical report (1999), http://www.cesg.gov.uk/site/iacs/itsec/media/certreps/CRP129.pdf
  3. 3.
    CCIB: Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1 (ISO 15408) (November 2007), http://csrc.nist.gov/cc
  4. 4.
    Stepney, S., Cooper, D., Woodcock, J.: An Electronic Purse: Specification, Refinement, and Proof. Technical monograph PRG-126, Oxford University Computing Lab (2000), http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/bib/ss/z/monog.htm
  5. 5.
    Spivey, J.M.: The Z Notation: A Reference Manual, 2nd edn. PHI (1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Woodcock, J.: First Steps in the Verified Software Grand Challenge. IEEE Computer 39(10), 57–64 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jones, C., Woodcock, J. (eds.): Formal Aspects of Computing, vol. 20 (1). Springer, Heidelberg (January 2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schellhorn, G., Grandy, H., Haneberg, D., Reif, W.: The Mondex Challenge: Machine Checked Proofs for an Electronic Purse. In: Misra, J., Nipkow, T., Sekerinski, E. (eds.) FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4085, pp. 16–31. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cooper, D., Stepney, S., Woodcock, J.: Derivation of Z Refinement Proof Rules. Technical Report YCS-2002-347, University of York (2002), http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/bib/ss/z/zrules.htm
  10. 10.
    Gurevich, Y.: Evolving Algebras 1993: Lipari Guide. In: Börger, E. (ed.) Specification and Validation Methods, pp. 9–36. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Börger, E., Stärk, R.F.: Abstract State Machines—A Method for High-Level System Design and Analysis. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schellhorn, G., Grandy, H., Haneberg, D., Moebius, N., Reif, W.: A Systematic Verification Approach for Mondex Electronic Purses using ASMs. In: Dagstuhl Seminar on Rigorous Methods for Software Construction and Analysis. LNCS, Springer, Heidelberg (2008); (older version available as Techn. Report 2006-27 at [24]) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Börger, E., Rosenzweig, D.: The WAM—Definition and Compiler Correctness. In: Logic Programming: Formal Methods and Practical Applications. Studies in CS and AI, vol. 11, pp. 20–90. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schellhorn, G.: Verification of ASM Refinements Using Generalized Forward Simulation. J.UCS 7(11), 952–979 (2001)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Börger, E.: The ASM Refinement Method. FAC 15 (1-2), 237–257 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schellhorn, G.: ASM Refinement and Generalizations of Forward Simulation in Data Refinement: A Comparison. TCS 336, 403–435 (2005)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schellhorn, G.: ASM Refinement Preserving Invariants. In: Proceedings of the ASM workshop 2007, Grimstad, Norway (2008) (to appear in J.UCS) Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Banach, R., Jeske, C., Poppleton, M., Stepney, S.: Retrenching the Purse: The Balance Enquiry Quandary, and Generalised and (1,1) Forward Refinements. Fund. Inf. 77, 29–69 (2007)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Butler, M., Yadav, D.: An Incremental Development of the Mondex System in Event-B. FAC 20(1) (January 2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Haxthausen, A., George, C.: Specification, Proof, and Model Checking of the Mondex Electronic Purse using RAISE. FAC 20(1) (January 2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Haneberg, D., Schellhorn, G., Grandy, H., Reif, W.: Verification of Mondex Electronic Purses with KIV: From Transactions to a Security Protocol. Formal Aspects of Computing 20(1) (January 2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moebius, N., Haneberg, D., Schellhorn, G., Reif, W.: A Modeling Framework for the Development of Provably Secure E-Commerce Applications. In: International Conference on Software Engineering Advances (ICSEA). IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2007), http://ieeexplore.ieee.org Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grandy, H., Bischof, M., Schellhorn, G., Reif, W., Stenzel, K.: Verification of Mondex Electronic Purses with KIV: From a Security Protocol to Verified Code. In: Cuellar, J., Maibaum, T.S.E. (eds.) FM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5014. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mondex KIV: Web presentation of the Mondex case study in KIV, http://www.informatik.uni-augsburg.de/swt/projects/mondex.html
  25. 25.
    Banach, R., Schellhorn, G.: On the Refinement of Atomic Actions. In: Proceedings of REFINE 2007. ENTCS, vol. 201, pp. 3–30 (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Banach, R., Schellhorn, G.: Atomic Actions, and their Refinements to Isolated Protocols. In: FAC (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Harel, D., Kozen, D., Tiuryn, J.: Dynamic Logic. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerhard Schellhorn
    • 1
  • Richard Banach
    • 2
  1. 1.Lehrstuhl für Softwaretechnik und ProgrammiersprachenUniversität AugsburgAugsburgGermany
  2. 2.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of ManchesterManchesterU.K.

Personalised recommendations