Advertisement

On Asymmetric Unification and the Combination Problem in Disjoint Theories

  • Serdar Erbatur
  • Deepak Kapur
  • Andrew M. Marshall
  • Catherine Meadows
  • Paliath Narendran
  • Christophe Ringeissen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8412)

Abstract

Asymmetric unification is a new paradigm for unification modulo theories that introduces irreducibility constraints on one side of a unification problem. It has important applications in symbolic cryptographic protocol analysis, for which it is often necessary to put irreducibility constraints on portions of a state. However many facets of asymmetric unification that are of particular interest, including its behavior under combinations of disjoint theories, remain poorly understood. In this paper we give a new formulation of the method for unification in the combination of disjoint equational theories developed by Baader and Schulz that both gives additional insights into the disjoint combination problem in general, and furthermore allows us to extend the method to asymmetric unification, giving the first unification method for asymmetric unification in the combination of disjoint theories.

Keywords

Normal Form Combination Problem Equational Theory Theory Index Free Abelian Group 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Baader, F., Nipkow, T.: Term rewriting and all that. Cambridge University Press, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader, F., Schulz, K.U.: Unification in the Union of Disjoint Equational Theories: Combining Decision Procedures. Journal of Symbolic Computation 21(2), 211–243 (1996)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baader, F., Snyder, W.: Unification Theory. In: Robinson, J.A., Voronkov, A. (eds.) Handbook of Automated Reasoning, pp. 445–532. Elsevier and MIT Press (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blanchet, B.: An Efficient Cryptographic Protocol Verifier Based on Prolog Rules. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE Workshop on Computer Security Foundations, CSFW 2001, pp. 82–96. IEEE Computer Society (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bouchard, C., Gero, K.A., Lynch, C., Narendran, P.: On Forward Closure and the Finite Variant Property. In: Fontaine, P., Ringeissen, C., Schmidt, R.A. (eds.) FroCoS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8152, pp. 327–342. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Comon-Lundh, H., Delaune, S.: The Finite Variant Property: How to Get Rid of Some Algebraic Properties. In: Giesl, J. (ed.) RTA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3467, pp. 294–307. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Erbatur, S., Escobar, S., Kapur, D., Liu, Z., Lynch, C., Meadows, C., Meseguer, J., Narendran, P., Santiago, S., Sasse, R.: Effective Symbolic Protocol Analysis via Equational Irreducibility Conditions. In: Foresti, S., Yung, M., Martinelli, F. (eds.) ESORICS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7459, pp. 73–90. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Erbatur, S., Escobar, S., Kapur, D., Liu, Z., Lynch, C.A., Meadows, C., Meseguer, J., Narendran, P., Santiago, S., Sasse, R.: Asymmetric Unification: A New Unification Paradigm for Cryptographic Protocol Analysis. In: Bonacina, M.P. (ed.) CADE 2013. LNCS, vol. 7898, pp. 231–248. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Erbatur, S., Kapur, D., Marshall, A.M., Meadows, C., Narendran, P., Ringeissen, C.: On Asymmetric Unification and the Combination Problem in Disjoint Theories. INRIA Research Report (2014), http://hal.inria.fr/
  10. 10.
    Escobar, S., Meadows, C., Meseguer, J.: Maude-NPA: Cryptographic Protocol Analysis Modulo Equational Properties. In: Aldini, A., Barthe, G., Gorrieri, R. (eds.) FOSAD 2007/2008/2009. LNCS, vol. 5705, pp. 1–50. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Escobar, S., Meseguer, J., Sasse, R.: Variant Narrowing and Equational Unification. Electronic Notes Theor. Comput. Science 238(3), 103–119 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Escobar, S., Sasse, R., Meseguer, J.: Folding Variant Narrowing and Optimal Variant Termination. J. Log. Algebr. Program. 81(7-8), 898–928 (2012)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jouannaud, J.-P., Toyama, Y.: Modular Church-Rosser Modulo: The Complete Picture. Int. J. Software and Informatics 2(1), 61–75 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu, Z.: Dealing Efficiently with Exclusive OR, Abelian Groups and Homomorphism in Cryptographic Protocol Analysis. PhD thesis, Clarkson University (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Meier, S., Schmidt, B., Cremers, C., Basin, D.: The TAMARIN Prover for the Symbolic Analysis of Security Protocols. In: Sharygina, N., Veith, H. (eds.) CAV 2013. LNCS, vol. 8044, pp. 696–701. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mödersheim, S.: Models and methods for the automated analysis of security protocols. PhD thesis, ETH Zurich (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rusinowitch, M.: On Termination of the Direct sum of Term-Rewriting Systems. Information Processing Letters 26, 65–70 (1987)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Serdar Erbatur
    • 1
  • Deepak Kapur
    • 2
  • Andrew M. Marshall
    • 3
  • Catherine Meadows
    • 4
  • Paliath Narendran
    • 5
  • Christophe Ringeissen
    • 6
  1. 1.Università degli Studi di VeronaItaly
  2. 2.University of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  3. 3.ASEEWashington, DCUSA
  4. 4.Naval Research LaboratoryWashington, DCUSA
  5. 5.SUNYUniversity at AlbanyAlbanyUSA
  6. 6.LORIA – INRIA Nancy-Grand EstNancyFrance

Personalised recommendations