A method for proving observational equivalence

被引:32
|
作者
Cortier, Veronique [1 ]
Delaune, Stephanie [2 ]
机构
[1] CNRS, LORIA, F-75700 Paris, France
[2] CNRS, INRIA, LSV, ENS, F-75700 Paris, France
来源
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 22ND IEEE COMPUTER SECURITY FOUNDATIONS SYMPOSIUM | 2009年
关键词
SECURITY PROTOCOLS; VERIFICATION; PROOF;
D O I
10.1109/CSF.2009.9
中图分类号
TP301 [理论、方法];
学科分类号
081202 ;
摘要
Formal methods have proved their usefulness for analyzing the security of protocols. Most existing results focus on trace properties like secrecy (expressed as a reachability property) or authentication. There are however several security properties, which cannot be defined (or cannot be naturally defined) as trace properties and require the notion of observational equivalence. Typical examples are anonymity, privacy related properties or statements closer to security properties used in cryptography. In this paper, we consider the applied pi calculus and we show that for determinate processes, observational equivalence actually coincides with trace equivalence, a notion simpler to reason with. We exhibit a large class of determinate processes, called simple processes, that capture most existing protocols and cryptographic primitives. Then, for simple processes without replication nor else branch, we reduce the decidability of trace equivalence to deciding an equivalence relation introduced by M. Baudet. Altogether, this yields the first decidability result of observational equivalence for a general class of equational theories.
引用
收藏
页码:266 / +
页数:2
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Bounding the Number of Agents, for Equivalence Too
    Cortier, Veronique
    Dallon, Antoine
    Delaune, Stephanie
    PRINCIPLES OF SECURITY AND TRUST (POST 2016), 2016, 9635 : 211 - 232
  • [22] The role of abduction in proving processes
    Bettina Pedemonte
    David Reid
    Educational Studies in Mathematics, 2011, 76 : 281 - 303
  • [23] Computer Theorem Proving in Mathematics
    Carlos Simpson
    Letters in Mathematical Physics, 2004, 69 : 287 - 315
  • [24] Proving Linearizability Using Reduction
    Wen, Tangliu
    Song, Lan
    You, Zhen
    COMPUTER JOURNAL, 2019, 62 (09) : 1342 - 1364
  • [25] Proving Non-opacity
    Lesani, Mohsen
    Palsberg, Jens
    DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING, 2013, 8205 : 106 - 120
  • [26] Combining programming with theorem proving
    Chen, CY
    Xi, HW
    ACM SIGPLAN NOTICES, 2005, 40 (09) : 66 - 77
  • [27] Proving non-termination
    Gupta, Ashutosh K.
    Henzinger, Thomas A.
    Majumdar, Rupak
    Rybalchenko, Andrey
    Xu, Ru-Gang
    ACM SIGPLAN NOTICES, 2008, 43 (01) : 147 - 158
  • [28] THEOREM PROVING IN THE ONTOLOGY LIFECYCLE
    Katsumi, Megan
    Gruninger, Michael
    KEOD 2010: PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON KNOWLEDGE ENGINEERING AND ONTOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, 2010, : 37 - 49
  • [29] Proving termination of GHC programs
    Rao, MRKK
    Kapur, D
    Shyamasundar, RK
    NEW GENERATION COMPUTING, 1997, 15 (03) : 293 - 338
  • [30] Observational probability method to assess ensemble precipitation forecasts
    Santos, Carlos
    Ghelli, Anna
    QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY, 2012, 138 (662) : 209 - 221