A game-theoretic framework for specification and verification of cryptographic protocols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We model security protocols as games using concepts of game semantics. Using this model we ascribe semantics to protocols written in the standard simple arrow notation. According to the semantics, a protocol is interpreted as a set of strategies over a game tree that represents the type of the protocol. The model uses abstract computation functions and message frames in order to model internal computations and knowledge of agents and the intruder. Moreover, in order to specify properties of the model, a logic that deals with games and strategies is developed. A tableau-based proof system is given for the logic, which can serve as a basis for a model checking algorithm. This approach allows us to model a wide range of security protocol types and verify different properties instead of using a variety of methods as is currently the practice. Furthermore, the analyzed protocols are specified using only the simple arrow notation heavily used by protocol designers and by practitioners.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".