Skip to main content

Compiling and Verifying Security Protocols

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Logic for Programming and Automated Reasoning (LPAR 2000)

Abstract

We propose a direct and fully automated translation from standard security protocol descriptions to rewrite rules. This compilation defines non-ambiguous operational semantics for protocols and intruder behavior: they are rewrite systems executed by applying a variant of acnarrowing. The rewrite rules are processed by the theorem-prover daTac. Multiple instances of a protocol can be run simultaneously as well as a model of the intruder (among several possible). The existence of flaws in the protocol is revealed by the derivation of an inconsistency. Our implementation of the compiler CASRUL, together with the prover daTac, permitted us to derive security flaws in many classical cryptographic protocols.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. R. Anderson. Programming Satan’s computer. volume 1000 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag. 148

    Google Scholar 

  2. L. Bachmair, N. Dershowitz, and D. Plaisted. Completion without Failure. In H. Aït-Kaci and M. Nivat, editors, Resolution of Equations in Algebraic Structures, Volume 2: Rewriting Techniques, pages 1–30. Academic Press inc., 1989. 152

    Google Scholar 

  3. L. Bachmair and H. Ganzinger. Associative-Commutative Superposition. In N. Dershowitz and N. Lindenstrauss, editors, Proc. 4th CTRS Workshop, Jerusalem (Israel), volume 968 of LNCS, pages 1–14. Springer-Verlag, 1995. 153

    Google Scholar 

  4. D. Basin. Lazy infinite-state analysis of security protocols. In Secure Networking — CQRE [Secure]’ 99, LNCS 1740, pages 30–42. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999. 132

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. D. Bolignano. Towards the formal verification of electronic commerce protocols. In IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop, pages 133–146. IEEE Computer Society, 1997. 131, 142

    Google Scholar 

  6. D. Brand. Proving Theorems with the Modification Method. SIAM J. of Computing, 4:412–430, 1975. 152

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. J. Clark and J. Jacob. A survey of authentication protocol literature. http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/~jac/papers/drareviewps.ps, 1997. 131, 150, 151, 155

  8. G. Denker, J. Meseguer, and C. Talcott. Protocol specification and analysis in Maude. In Formal Methods and Security Protocols, 1998. LICS’ 98 Workshop. 131, 133, 152

    Google Scholar 

  9. G. Denker and J. Millen. Capsl intermediate language. In Formal Methods and Security Protocols, 1999. FLOC’ 99 Workshop. 131, 132

    Google Scholar 

  10. N. Dershowitz and J.-P. Jouannaud. Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, volume B, chapter 6: Rewrite Systems, pages 244–320. North-Holland, 1990. 133, 139

    Google Scholar 

  11. D. Dolev and A. Yao. On the security of public key protocols. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, IT-29:198–208, 1983. Also STAN-CS-81-854, May 1981, Stanford U. 133, 137

    Google Scholar 

  12. E. Domenjoud. A technical note on AC-unification. the number of minimal unifiers of the equation áx1 + … + áxp =AC βy1 + … + βyq. JAR, 8:39–44, 1992. 153

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. R. Focardi and R. Gorrieri. Cvs: A compiler for the analysis of cryptographic protocols. In 12th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop. IEEE Computer Society, 1999. 131

    Google Scholar 

  14. J. Hsiang and M. Rusinowitch. Proving Refutational Completeness of Theorem-Proving Strategies: the Transfinite Semantic Tree Method. JACM, 38(3):559–587, July 1991. 152

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. J.-M. Hullot. Canonical forms and unification. In 5th International Conference on Automated Deduction, volume 87, pages 318–334. Springer-Verlag, LNCS, july 1980. 131, 137

    Google Scholar 

  16. D. E. Knuth and P. B. Bendix. Simple Word Problems in Universal Algebras. In J. Leech, editor, Computational Problems in Abstract Algebra, pages 263–297. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1970. 152

    Google Scholar 

  17. G. Lowe. Casper: a compiler for the analysis of security protocols. Journal of Computer Security, 6(1):53–84, 1998. 131, 132, 132, 133, 136

    Google Scholar 

  18. G. Lowe. Towards a completeness result for model checking of security protocols. In 11th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop, pages 96–105. IEEE Computer Society, 1998. 134

    Google Scholar 

  19. C. Meadows. Applying formal methods to the analysis of a key management protocol. Journal of Computer Security, 1(1):5–36, 1992. 133

    Google Scholar 

  20. C. Meadows. The NRL protocol analyzer: an overview. Journal of Logic Programming, 26(2):113–131, 1996. 133

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. J. Millen. CAPSL: Common Authentication Protocol Specification Language. Technical Report MP 97B48, The MITRE Corporation, 1997. 132, 132, 133

    Google Scholar 

  22. J. Mitchell, M. Mitchell, and U. Stern. Automated analysis of cryptographic protocols using Murö. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 141–154. IEEE Computer Society, 1997. 131

    Google Scholar 

  23. R. Nieuwenhuis and A. Rubio. Paramodulation-based theorem proving. In J.A. Robinson and A. Voronkov, editors, Handbook of Automated Reasoning. Elsevier Science Publishers, 2000. 152

    Google Scholar 

  24. L. Paulson. The inductive approach to verifying cryptographic protocols. Journal of Computer Security, 6(1):85–128, 1998. 131

    Google Scholar 

  25. G. Peterson and M. E. Stickel. Complete sets of reductions for some equational theories. JACM, 28:233–264, 1981. 153

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. G. Plotkin. Building-in equational theories. Machine Intelligence, 7:73–90, 1972. 152

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. G. A. Robinson and L. T. Wos. Paramodulation and First-Order Theorem Proving. In B. Meltzer and D. Mitchie, editors, Machine Intelligence 4, pages 135–150. Edinburgh University Press, 1969. 152

    Google Scholar 

  28. A. W. Roscoe. Modelling and verifying key-exchange protocols using CSP and FDR. In 8th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop, pages 98–107. IEEE Computer Society, 1995. 132

    Google Scholar 

  29. M. Rusinowitch and L. Vigneron. Automated Deduction with Associative-Commutative Operators. Applicable Algebra in Engineering, Communication and Computation, 6(1):23–56, January 1995. 152, 153

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. B. Schneier. Applied Cryptography. John Wiley, 1996. 133

    Google Scholar 

  31. J. R. Slagle. Automated Theorem-Proving for theories with Simplifiers, Commutativity and Associativity. JACM, 21(4):622–642, 1974. 152

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  32. P. Syverson, C. Meadows, and I. Cervesato. Dolev-Yao is no better than Machiavelli. In WITS’00. Workshop on Issues in the Theory of Security, 2000. 146

    Google Scholar 

  33. L. Vigneron. Positive deduction modulo regular theories. In Proceedings of Computer Science Logic, Paderborn (Germany), pages 468–485. LNCS 1092, Springer-Verlag, 1995. 131, 152, 152

    Google Scholar 

  34. C. Weidenbach. Towards an automatic analysis of security protocols. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Automated Deduction, pages 378–382. LNCS 1632, Springer-Verlag, 1999. 131

    Google Scholar 

  35. U. Wertz. First-Order Theorem Proving Modulo Equations. Technical Report MPI-I-92-216, MPI Informatik, April 1992. 153

    Google Scholar 

  36. T. Woo and S. Lam. A semantic model for authentication protocols. In IEEE Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, pages 178–194. IEEE Computer Society, 1993. 134, 147

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Jacquemard, F., Rusinowitch, M., Vigneron, L. (2000). Compiling and Verifying Security Protocols. In: Parigot, M., Voronkov, A. (eds) Logic for Programming and Automated Reasoning. LPAR 2000. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence(), vol 1955. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44404-1_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44404-1_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-41285-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44404-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics