Advertisement

Kerberos Version IV: Inductive analysis of the secrecy goals

  • Giampaolo Bella
  • Lawrence C. Paulson
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1485)

Abstract

An operational model of crypto-protocols is tailored to the detailed analysis of the secrecy goals accomplished by Kerberos Version IV. The model is faithful to the specification of the protocol presented by the MIT technical plan [14] — e.g. timestamping, double session key delivery mechanism are included. It allows an eavesdropper to exploit the shared keys of compromised agents, and admits the accidental loss of expired session keys. Confidentiality is expressed from the viewpoint of each party involved in a protocol run, with particular attention to the assumptions the party relies on. If such assumptions are unrealistic, they highlight weaknesses of the protocol. This is particularly so from the viewpoint of the responder: the model suggests and proves a reasonable correction.

Keywords

secrecy secure key non-expired timestamp inductive method machine proof 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    G. Bella, L. C. Paulson. Using Isabelle to Prove Properties of the Kerberos Authentication System. Proc. of DIMACS Workshop on Design and Formal Verification of Security Protocols, Orman and Meadows (eds.), 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Bella, L. C. Paulson. Mechanising BAN Kerberos by the Inductive Method. Proc. of Conference on Computer Aided Verification, Springer, LNCS Series, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. Bella, E. Riccobene. Formal Analysis of the Kerberos Authentication System. Journal of Universal Computer Science: Special Issue on Gurevich’s Abstract State Machine, Springer, 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. M. Bellovin, M. Meritt. Limitations of the Kerberos authentication system. Computer Comm. Review, 20(5) 119–132, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. H. Brackin. A HOL Extension of GNY for Automatically Analyzing Cryptographic Protocols. Proc. of Computer Security Foundations Workshop, IEEE Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Burrows, M. Abadi, R. M. Needham. A logic of authentication. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 426:233–271, 1989.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Y. Gurevich. Evolving Algebras 1993: Lipari Guide. In Specification and Validation Methods, Oxford University Press, E. Börger (ed.), 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Kemmerer, C. Meadows, J. Millen. Three Systems for Cryptographic Protocol Analysis. Journal of Cryptology, 7(2), 79–130, 1994.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Kohl, B. Neuman. The Kerberos Network Authentication Service (Version V). Internet Request for Comment RFC-1510, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Kohl, B. Neuman, T. Ts’o. The Evolution of the Kerberos Authentication Service. IEEE Press, 78–94, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Lowe. Breaking and Fixing the Needham-Schroeder Public-Key Protocol using FDR. Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, Margaria and Steffen (eds.), LNCS1055, Springer Verlag, 147–166, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Lowe. Casper: a Compiler for the Analysis of Security Protocols. Oxford University, Computing Laboratory, Technical Report, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. Meadows. The NRL Protocol Analyzer: An Overview. Journal of Logic Programming, 26(2), 113–131, 1996.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. P. Miller, J. I. Neuman, J. I. Schiller, J. H. Saltzer. Kerberos authentication and authorisation system. Project Athena Technical Plan, Sec. E.2.1, 1–36, MIT, 1989.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. C. Mitchell, M. Mitchell, U. Stern: Automated Analysis of Cryptographic Protocols Using Murphi. Proc. of IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 141–151, 1997.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    L. C. Paulson. Isabelle: A Generic Theorem Prover. Springer, 1994. LNCS 828.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    L. C. Paulson. Proving properties of security protocols by induction. Proc. of Computer Security Foundations Workshop, IEEE Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    L. C. Paulson. On Two Formal Analyses of the Yahalom Protocol. Cambridge University, Computer Laboratory, Technical Report No. 432, July 1997.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    L. C. Paulson. Inductive Analysis of the Internet Protocol TLS. Cambridge University, Computer Laboratory, Technical Report No. 440, Dec. 1997.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    S. Schneider. Verifying Authentication Protocols Using CSP. Proc. of Computer Security Foundations Workshop, IEEE Press, 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giampaolo Bella
    • 1
  • Lawrence C. Paulson
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer LaboratoryUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations