Advertisement

From One Session to Many: Dynamic Tags for Security Protocols

  • Myrto Arapinis
  • Stéphanie Delaune
  • Steve Kremer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5330)

Abstract

The design and verification of cryptographic protocols is a notoriously difficult task, even in abstract Dolev-Yao models. This is mainly due to several sources of unboundedness (size of messages, number of sessions, ...). In this paper, we characterize a class of protocols for which secrecy for an unbounded number of sessions is decidable. More precisely, we present a simple transformation which maps a protocol that is secure for a single protocol session (a decidable problem) to a protocol that is secure for an unbounded number of sessions.

Our result provides an effective strategy to design secure protocols: (i) design a protocol intended to be secure for one protocol session (this can be verified with existing automated tools); (ii) apply our transformation and obtain a protocol which is secure for an unbounded number of sessions. The proof of our result is closely tied to a particular constraint solving procedure by Comon-Lundh et al.

Keywords

Security Protocol Constraint System Cryptographic Protocol Unbounded Number Secrecy Property 
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.
    Arapinis, M., Delaune, S., Kremer, S.: From one session to many: Dynamic tags for security protocols. Research Report LSV-08-20, ENS Cachan, France, 30 pages (June 2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arapinis, M., Duflot, M.: Bounding messages for free in security protocols. In: Arvind, V., Prasad, S. (eds.) FSTTCS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4855, pp. 376–387. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Armando, A., et al.: The Avispa tool for the automated validation of internet security protocols and applications. In: Etessami, K., Rajamani, S.K. (eds.) CAV 2005. LNCS, vol. 3576, pp. 281–285. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beauquier, D., Gauche, F.: How to guarantee secrecy for cryptographic protocols. CoRR, abs/cs/0703140 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bellare, M., Canetti, R., Krawczyk, H.: A modular approach to the design and analysis of authentication and key exchange protocols (extended abstract). In: Proc. 30th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC 1998), pp. 419–428. ACM Press, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blanchet, B., Podelski, A.: Verification of cryptographic protocols: Tagging enforces termination. In: Gordon, A.D. (ed.) FOSSACS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2620, pp. 136–152. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clark, J., Jacob, J.: A survey of authentication protocol literature (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Comon, H.: Résolution de contraintes et recherche d’attaques pour un nombre borné de sessions, http://www.lsv.ens-cachan.fr/~comon/CRYPTO/bounded.ps
  9. 9.
    Comon-Lundh, H., Cortier, V.: Security properties: two agents are sufficient. Science of Computer Programming 50(1-3), 51–71 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cortier, V., Delaitre, J., Delaune, S.: Safely composing security protocols. In: Arvind, V., Prasad, S. (eds.) FSTTCS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4855, pp. 352–363. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cortier, V., Delaune, S.: Safely composing security protocols. Research Report LSV-08-06, ENS Cachan, France, 39 pages (March 2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cortier, V., Warinschi, B., Zălinescu, E.: Synthesizing secure protocols. In: Biskup, J., López, J. (eds.) ESORICS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4734, pp. 406–421. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cortier, V., Zălinescu, E.: Deciding key cycles for security protocols. In: Hermann, M., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2006. LNCS, vol. 4246, pp. 317–331. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Delaune, S.: Note: Constraint solving procedure, http://www.lsv.ens-cachan.fr/Publis/PAPERS/PDF/CDD-fsttcs07-addendum.pdf
  15. 15.
    Dolev, D., Even, S., Karp, R.M.: On the security of ping-pong protocols. In: Proc. Advances in Cryptology (CRYPTO 1982), pp. 177–186 (1982)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dolev, D., Yao, A.C.: On the security of public key protocols. In: Proc. of the 22nd Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 1981). IEEE Comp. Soc. Press, Los Alamitos (1981)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Durgin, N., Lincoln, P., Mitchell, J., Scedrov, A.: Undecidability of bounded security protocols. In: Proc. Workshop on Formal Methods and Security Protocols (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heather, J., Lowe, G., Schneider, S.: How to prevent type flaw attacks on security protocols. In: Proc. 13th Computer Security Foundations Workshop (CSFW 2001), pp. 255–268. IEEE Comp. Soc. Press, Los Alamitos (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Katz, J., Yung, M.: Scalable protocols for authenticated group key exchange. In: Boneh, D. (ed.) CRYPTO 2003. LNCS, vol. 2729, pp. 110–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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. 147–166. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lowe, G.: Towards a completeness result for model checking of security protocols. Journal of Computer Security 7(1) (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Millen, J., Shmatikov, V.: Constraint solving for bounded-process cryptographic protocol analysis. In: Proc. 8th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS 2001). ACM Press, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ramanujam, R., Suresh, S.P.: Tagging makes secrecy decidable for unbounded nonces as well. In: Pandya, P.K., Radhakrishnan, J. (eds.) FSTTCS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2914, pp. 363–374. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ramanujam, R., Suresh, S.P.: Decidability of context-explicit security protocols. Journal of Computer Security 13(1), 135–165 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rusinowitch, M., Turuani, M.: Protocol insecurity with finite number of sessions and composed keys is NP-complete. Theoretical Computer Science 299(1-3), 451–475 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Myrto Arapinis
    • 1
  • Stéphanie Delaune
    • 1
  • Steve Kremer
    • 1
  1. 1.LSV, ENS Cachan & CNRS & INRIAFrance

Personalised recommendations