MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113071904 · doi:10.1109/sefm.2007.46

Verifying Security Properties of Cryptoprotocols: A Novel Approach

2007· article· en· W2113071904 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 scienceProtocol (science)NotationSemantics (computer science)Theoretical computer scienceCryptographic protocolSimple (philosophy)Programming languageSet (abstract data type)Operational semanticsGame semanticsTree (set theory)AlgorithmCryptographyDenotational semanticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We model security protocols as a game tree 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. 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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.245 · 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