MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093381253 · doi:10.1109/ainaw.2007.304

Rank Theorems for Forward Secrecy in Group Key Management Protocols

2007· article· en· W2093381253 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Authentication Protocols Security
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceForward secrecySecrecyRank (graph theory)Cryptographic protocolCryptographyKey (lock)Key managementProtocol (science)Theoretical computer scienceAutomated theorem provingSet (abstract data type)Computer securityPublic-key cryptographyMathematicsEncryptionProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Design and verification of cryptographic protocols has been under investigation for quite sometime. However, little has been done for the class of protocols that deals with group key management and distribution, and have special security properties, such as forward secrecy. In this paper, we define a formal model and establish rank theorems for forward properties based on a set of generic formal specification requirements for group key management and distribution protocols. Rank theorems imply the validity of the security property to be proved, and are deducted from a set of rank functions we define over the protocol. The above formalizations and rank theorems were implemented using the PVS theorem prover. We illustrate our approach on the verification of forward secrecy for the Enclaves protocol designed at SRI.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.267
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it