Bounded Memory Protocols and Progressing Collaborative Systems

  • Max Kanovich
  • Tajana Ban Kirigin
  • Vivek Nigam
  • Andre Scedrov
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8134)

Abstract

It is well-known that the Dolev-Yao adversary is a powerful adversary. Besides acting as the network, intercepting, sending, and composing messages, he can remember as much information as he needs. That is, his memory is unbounded. We recently proposed a weaker Dolev-Yao like adversary, which also acts as the network, but whose memory is bounded. We showed that this Bounded Memory Dolev-Yao adversary, when given enough memory, can carry out many existing protocol anomalies. In particular, the known anomalies arise for bounded memory protocols, where there is only a bounded number of concurrent sessions and the honest participants of the protocol cannot remember an unbounded number of facts nor an unbounded number of nonces at a time. This led us to the question of whether it is possible to infer an upper-bound on the memory required by the Dolev-Yao adversary to carry out an anomaly from the memory restrictions of the bounded protocol. This paper answers this question negatively (Theorem 2). The second contribution of this paper is the formalization of Progressing Collaborative Systems that may create fresh values, such as nonces. In this setting there is no unbounded adversary, although bounded memory adversaries may be present. We prove the NP-completeness of the reachability problem for Progressing Collaborative Systems that may create fresh values.

References

  1. 1.
    Amadio, R.M., Lugiez, D., Vanackère, V.: On the symbolic reduction of processes with cryptographic functions. Theor. Comput. Sci. 290(1), 695–740 (2003)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brands, S., Chaum, D.: Distance bounding protocols. In: Helleseth, T. (ed.) EUROCRYPT 1993. LNCS, vol. 765, pp. 344–359. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cervesato, I., Durgin, N.A., Lincoln, P., Mitchell, J.C., Scedrov, A.: A Meta-Notation for Protocol Analysis. In: CSFW, pp. 55–69 (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Church, A.: A formulation of the simple theory of types. J. Symbolic Logic 5, 56–68 (1940)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clavel, M., Durán, F., Eker, S., Lincoln, P., Martí-Oliet, N., Meseguer, J., Talcott, C.: All About Maude. LNCS, vol. 4350. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cook, S.A.: The complexity of theorem-proving procedures. In: STOC (1971)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dolev, D., Yao, A.: On the security of public key protocols. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 29(2), 198–208 (1983)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Durgin, N.A., Lincoln, P., Mitchell, J.C., Scedrov, A.: Multiset rewriting and the complexity of bounded security protocols. Journal of Computer Security 12(2), 247–311 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Esparza, J., Nielsen, M.: Decidability issues for Petri nets - a survey. Bulletin of the EATCS 52, 244–262 (1994)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harrison, M.A., Ruzzo, W.L., Ullman, J.D.: On protection in operating systems. In: SOSP (1975)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kanovich, M., Kirigin, T.B., Nigam, V., Scedrov, A.: Bounded memory Dolev-Yao adversaries in collaborative systems. Inf. Comput. Accepted for Publication. An extended abstract appeared in: Degano, P., Etalle, S., Guttman, J. (eds.) FAST 2010. LNCS, vol. 6561, pp. 18–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kanovich, M., Kirigin, T.B., Nigam, V., Scedrov, A.: Progressing collaborative systems. In: FCS-PrivMod (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kanovich, M., Kirigin, T.B., Nigam, V., Scedrov, A.: Bounded Memory Protocols and Progressing Collaborative Systems (Technical Report), http://www.nigam.info/docs/fcs13-tr.pdf
  14. 14.
    Kanovich, M., Rowe, P., Scedrov, A.: Policy compliance in collaborative systems. In: CSF (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kanovich, M.I., Kirigin, T.B., Nigam, V., Scedrov, A., Talcott, C.L., Perovic, R.: A rewriting framework for activities subject to regulations. In: RTA (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kanovich, M.I., Rowe, P., Scedrov, A.: Collaborative planning with confidentiality. J. Autom. Reasoning 46(3-4), 389–421 (2011)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meadows, C., Poovendran, R., Pavlovic, D., Chang, L., Syverson, P.F.: Distance bounding protocols: Authentication logic analysis and collusion attacks. In: Advances in Information Security (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Needham, R.M., Schroeder, M.D.: Using encryption for authentication in large networks of computers. Commun. ACM 21(12), 993–999 (1978)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nigam, V., Kirigin, T.B., Scedrov, A., Talcott, C.L., Kanovich, M.I., Perovic, R.: Towards an automated assistant for clinical investigations. In: IHI (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rusinowitch, M., Turuani, M.: Protocol insecurity with a finite number of sessions and composed keys is NP-complete. Theor. Comput. Sci. 299(1-3), 451–475 (2003)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Max Kanovich
    • 1
  • Tajana Ban Kirigin
    • 2
  • Vivek Nigam
    • 3
  • Andre Scedrov
    • 4
  1. 1.Queen Mary, University of LondonUK
  2. 2.University of Rijeka, HRCroatia
  3. 3.Federal University of ParaíbaJoão PessoaBrazil
  4. 4.University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations