Advertisement

A Formal Foundation

Chapter
  • 717 Downloads

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

7.6 Notes

  1. [Jür02a]
    J. Jürjens. A UML statecharts semantics with message-passing. In H. Haddad, G. Papadopoulos, and B. Panda, editors. Proceedings of the 2002 Symposium of Applied Computing (SAC). ACM Press, 2002. Lamont et al [LHPP02], pages 1009–1013.Google Scholar
  2. [Jür02d]
    J. Jürjens. Formal semantics for interacting UML subsystems. In B. Jacobs and A. Rensink, editors, 5th International Conference on Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems (FMOODS 2002), pages 29–44. International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP), Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 2002.Google Scholar
  3. [BW00]
    M. Broy and M. Wirsing. Algebraic state machines. In T. Rus, editor, 8th International Conference on Algebraic Methodology and Software Technology (AMAST 2000), volume 1816 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 89–188. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 2000.Google Scholar
  4. [Jür03a]
    J. Jürjens. Algebraic state machines: Concepts and applications to security. In M. Broy and A. Zamulin, editors, Andrei Ershov 5th International Conference “Perspectives of System Informatics” (PSI2003), volume 2890 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 338–343. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 2003.Google Scholar
  5. [Bro00]
    M. Broy. Algebraic specification of reactive systems. Theoretical Computer Science, 239(1):3–40, 2000.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. [Bro01]
    M. Broy. Toward a mathematical foundation of software engineering methods. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 27(l):42–57, 2001.Google Scholar
  7. [BS01]
    M. Broy and K. Stølen. Specification and Development of Interactive Systems. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 2001.Google Scholar
  8. [Bro97]
    M. Broy. Compositional refinement of interactive systems. Journal of the ACM, 44(6):850–891, 1997.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. [Bro98]
    M. Broy. A functional rephrasing of the assumption/commitment specification style. Formal Methods in System Design, 13(1):87–119, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [PR94]
    B. Paech and B. Rumpe. A new concept of refinement used for behaviour modelling with automata. In M. Naftalin, B. T. Denvir, and M. Bertran, editors, FME 1994: Industrial Benefit of Formal Methods, volume 873 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 154–174. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1994. Second International Symposium of Formal Methods Europe.Google Scholar
  11. [Rum96]
    Bernhard Rumpe. Formale Methodik des Entwurfs verteilter objektorientierter Systeme. PhD thesis, TU München, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. [MIB98]
    M. Maia, V. Iorio, and R. Bigonha. Interacting Abstract State Machines. In GI [GI98], pages 37–49.Google Scholar
  13. [Sch98]
    W. Schonfeld. Interacting Abstract State Machines. In GI [GI98], pages 22–36.Google Scholar
  14. [Jür03a]
    J. Jürjens. Algebraic state machines: Concepts and applications to security. In M. Broy and A. Zamulin, editors, Andrei Ershov 5th International Conference “Perspectives of System Informatics” (PSI2003), volume 2890 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 338–343. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 2003.Google Scholar
  15. [Jür01g]
    J. Jürjens. Secrecy-preserving refinement. In International Symposium on Formal Methods Europe (FME), volume 2021 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 135–152. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 2001.Google Scholar
  16. [Jür00]
    J. Jürjens. Secure information flow for concurrent processes. In C. Palamidessi, editor, CONCUR 2000 (11th International Conference on Concurrency Theory), volume 1877 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 395–409. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 2000.Google Scholar
  17. [Jür01b]
    J. Jürjens. Composability of secrecy. In V. Gorodetski, V. Skormin, and L. Popyack, editors, International Workshop on Mathematical Methods, Models and Architectures for Computer Networks Security (MMM-ACNS 2001), volume 2052 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 28–38. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 2001.Google Scholar
  18. [Sch96]
    S. Schneider. Security properties and CSP. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P), pages 174–187, 1996.Google Scholar
  19. [HPS01]
    M. Heisel, A. Pfitzmann, and T. Santen. Confidentiality-preserving refinement. In Computer Security Foundations Workshop (CSFW), pages 295–306. IEEE Computer Society, New York, 2001.Google Scholar
  20. [SHP02]
    T. Santen, M. Heisel, and A. Pfitzmann. Confidentiality-preserving refinement is compositional — sometimes. In G. Karjoth, and M. Waidner, editors. 7th European Symposium on Research in Computer Security (ESORICS 2002), volume 2502 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 2002. Gollmann et al [GKW02], pages 194–211.Google Scholar
  21. [GCS91]
    J. Graham-Cumming and J. Sanders. On the refinement of noninterference. In Computer Security Foundations Workshop (CSFW), pages 35–42, 1991.Google Scholar
  22. [Mea92]
    C. Meadows. Using traces based on procedure calls to reason about composability. In Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P), pages 177–188. IEEE Computer Society, New York, 1992.Google Scholar
  23. [McL94]
    J. McLean. Security models. In J. Marciniak, editor, Encyclopedia of Software Engineering. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1994.Google Scholar
  24. [McL96]
    J. McLean. A general theory of composition for a class of “possibilistic” properties. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 22(l):53–67, 1996.Google Scholar
  25. [RWW94]
    A. Roscoe, J. Woodcock, and L. Wulf. Non-interference through determinism. In D. Gollmann, editor, 3rd European Symposium on Research in Computer Security (ESORICS 1994), volume 875 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 33–53. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1994.Google Scholar
  26. [Man01]
    H. Mantel. Preserving information flow properties under refinement. In Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P), pages 78–93, 2001.Google Scholar
  27. [Man02]
    H. Mantel. On the composition of secure systems. In 2002 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 88–101. IEEE Computer Society, New York, 2002.Google Scholar
  28. [AJ01]
    M. Abadi and J. Jürjens. Formal eavesdropping and its computational interpretation. In N. Kobayashi and B. C. Pierce, editors, Theoretical Aspects of Computer Software (4th International Symposium, TAGS 2001), volume 2215 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 82–94. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 2001.Google Scholar
  29. [Jür01a]
    J. Jürjens. Abstracting from failure probabilities. In Second International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design (ACSD 2001), pages 53–64. IEEE Computer Society, New York, 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Personalised recommendations