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
  • [41] Z-MODULE REASONING - AN EQUALITY-ORIENTED PROVING METHOD WITH BUILT-IN RING AXIOMS
    WANG, TC
    JOURNAL OF THE ACM, 1993, 40 (03) : 558 - 606
  • [42] On Communication Models When Verifying Equivalence Properties
    Babel, Kushal
    Cheval, Vincent
    Kremer, Steve
    PRINCIPLES OF SECURITY AND TRUST (POST 2017), 2017, 10204 : 141 - 163
  • [43] Automated Verification of Equivalence Properties of Cryptographic Protocols
    Chadha, Rohit
    Cheval, Vincent
    Ciobaca, Stefan
    Kremer, Steve
    ACM TRANSACTIONS ON COMPUTATIONAL LOGIC, 2016, 17 (04)
  • [44] Generating and using examples in the proving process
    Sandefur, J.
    Mason, J.
    Stylianides, G. J.
    Watson, A.
    EDUCATIONAL STUDIES IN MATHEMATICS, 2013, 83 (03) : 323 - 340
  • [45] A Retrospective of Proving the Correctness of Multiprocess Programs
    Lamport, Leslie
    IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, 2025, 51 (03) : 713 - 716
  • [46] Proving the correctness of client/server software
    Alkassar, Eyad
    Bogan, Sebastian
    Paul, Wolfgang J.
    SADHANA-ACADEMY PROCEEDINGS IN ENGINEERING SCIENCES, 2009, 34 (01): : 145 - 191
  • [47] Two approaches for proving linearizability of multiset
    Tofan, Bogdan
    Travkin, Oleg
    Schellhorn, Gerhard
    Wehrheim, Heike
    SCIENCE OF COMPUTER PROGRAMMING, 2014, 96 : 297 - 314
  • [48] A Computationally Complete Symbolic Attacker for Equivalence Properties
    Bana, Gergei
    Comon-Lundh, Hubert
    CCS'14: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 21ST ACM CONFERENCE ON COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY, 2014, : 609 - 620
  • [49] Affect, behavioural schemas and the proving process
    Selden, Annie
    McKee, Kerry
    Selden, John
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2010, 41 (02) : 199 - 215
  • [50] On Composing and Proving the Correctness of Reactive Behavior
    Harel, David
    Kantor, Amir
    Katz, Guy
    Marron, Assaf
    Mizrahi, Lior
    Weiss, Gera
    2013 PROCEEDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON EMBEDDED SOFTWARE (EMSOFT), 2013,