MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132874521 · doi:10.3217/jucs-010-09-1156

Symbolic Approach to the Analysis of Security Protocols

2020· article· en· W2132874521 on OpenAlexaff
Stéphane Lafrance

Bibliographic record

VenuePolyPublie (École Polytechnique de Montréal) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSymbolic data analysisCryptographic protocolComputer securitySecurity analysisThe SymbolicTheoretical computer scienceCryptographyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The specification and validation of security protocols often requires viewing function calls – like encryption/decryption and the generation of fake messages – explicitly as actions within the process semantics. Following this approach, this paper introduces a symbolic framework based on value-passing processes able to handle symbolic values like fresh nonces, fresh keys, fake addresses and fake messages. The main idea in our approach is to assign to each value-passing process a formula describing the symbolic values conveyed by its semantics. In such symbolic processes, called constrained processes, the formulas are drawn from a logic based on a message algebra equipped with encryption, signature and hashing primitives. The symbolic operational semantics of a constrained process is then established through semantic rules updating formulas by adding restrictions over the symbolic values, as required for the process to evolve. We then prove that the logic required from the semantic rules is decidable. We also define a bisimulation equivalence between constrained processes; this amounts to a generalisation of the standard bisimulation equivalence between (non-symbolic) value-passing processes. Finally, we provide a complete symbolic bisimulation method for constructing the bisimulation between constrained processes.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.727

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolyPublie (École Polytechnique de Montréal)Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207