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
  • [31] On a generality framework for proving tasks
    Bergwall, Andreas
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE NINTH CONFERENCE OF THE EUROPEAN SOCIETY FOR RESEARCH IN MATHEMATICS EDUCATION (CERME9), 2015, : 86 - 92
  • [32] Proving refinement using transduction
    Jonsson, B
    Pnueli, A
    Rump, C
    DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING, 1999, 12 (2-3) : 129 - 149
  • [33] Proving that Programs Are Differentially Private
    McIver, Annabelle
    Morgan, Carroll
    PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES AND SYSTEMS, APLAS 2019, 2019, 11893 : 3 - 18
  • [34] Proving termination of GHC programs
    Krishna Rao M.R.K.
    Kapur D.
    Shyamasundar R.K.
    New Generation Computing, 1997, 15 (3) : 293 - 338
  • [35] Computer theorem proving in mathematics
    Simpson, C
    LETTERS IN MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS, 2004, 69 (1) : 287 - 315
  • [36] Proof and proving in school mathematics
    Stylianides, Andreas J.
    JOURNAL FOR RESEARCH IN MATHEMATICS EDUCATION, 2007, 38 (03) : 289 - 321
  • [37] The role of abduction in proving processes
    Pedemonte, Bettina
    Reid, David
    EDUCATIONAL STUDIES IN MATHEMATICS, 2011, 76 (03) : 281 - 303
  • [38] Proving in the elementary mathematics classroom
    Moutsios-Rentzos, Andreas
    EDUCATIONAL STUDIES IN MATHEMATICS, 2020, 103 (03) : 375 - 381
  • [39] Layer Systems for Proving Confluence
    Felgenhauer, Bertram
    Zankl, Harald
    Middeldorp, Aart
    IARCS ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON FOUNDATIONS OF SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY AND THEORETICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE (FSTTCS 2011), 2011, 13 : 288 - 299
  • [40] Proving Stabilization of Biological Systems
    Cook, Byron
    Fisher, Jasmin
    Krepska, Elzbieta
    Piterman, Nir
    VERIFICATION, MODEL CHECKING, AND ABSTRACT INTERPRETATION, 2011, 6538 : 134 - 149