MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W88494997

A Decision Procedure for Structured Cryptographic Protocols

2006· article· en· W88494997 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

VenueNew Trends in Software Methodologies, Tools and Techniques · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Authentication Protocols Security
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCryptographic protocolDecidabilityComputer scienceCryptographyCryptographic primitiveProtocol (science)Theoretical computer scienceSecrecyInferenceSet (abstract data type)Process (computing)Computer securityProgramming languageArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given a cryptographic protocol, it is possible to extract an inference system modelling exactly the set of messages an active intruder can learn by manipulating this protocol. Unfortunately, there is no general proof-search procedure to test whether or not a term belongs to the theory of an inference system. This paper presents the preliminary results obtained during an attempt to circumvent this problem. First, it explains a transformation process over inference systems; then presents a decision procedure (using the transformation process) for the security of a class of cryptographic protocols, called structured protocols; and finally argues that some basic security properties are decidable for such cryptographic protocols. The security properties include secrecy and chaoticity; the results can possibly be extended to cover authentication as well.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.305 · 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