Security Analysis of Multicast/Unicast Router Key Management Protocols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Key Management Protocols (KMPs) are intended to manage cryptographic keys in a cryptosystem. KMPs have been standardized for Internet Protocol Security (IPsec), and these KMPs have been formally validated for their security properties. In the Internet, routing protocols have different requirements on their KMPs, which are not met by the existing IPsec KMPs, such as IKE, IKEv2, and GDOI. Protocol modeling has been used to analyze the security of the IPsec KMPs. For routing protocols, there are new KMPs proposed by the Keying and Authentication for Routing Protocols (KARP) working group of the Internet Engineering Task Force: RKMP, MRKM, and MaRK. These KMPs are designed to have better applicability for general routing protocols. However, the security of these protocols has not been validated. In this paper, we have summarized the necessary conditions for security of routing protocols. We have analyzed the security aspects of RKMP, MRKM, and MaRK, by formally validating those protocols using the AVISPA modeling tool. This has shown that these KMPs meet the necessary security requirements.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".