2000Unpublished venueRequires access

Extending Formal Cryptographic Protocol Analysis Techniques for Group Protocols and Low-Level Cryptographic Primitives

Catherine Meadows

Open publisher page 32 citations

Abstract

We have recently seen the development of a number of new tools for the analysis of cryptographic protocols. Many of them are based on state exploration, that is, they try to find as many paths through the protocol as possible, in the hope that, if there is an error, it will be discovered. But, since the search space offered by a cryptographic protocol is infinite, this search alone cannot guarantee security if no attack is found. However, some state exploration tools do offer the ability to prove security results as well as find flaws by the use of theoretical results about the system that they are examining. In particular, the NRL Protocol Analyzer [4] allows its user to interactively prove lemmas that limit the size of its search space. If the resulting search space is finite, then it too can guarantee that a protocol is secure by performing an exhaustive search. However, the ability to make such guarantees brings with it certain limitations. In particular, most of the systems developed so far model only a very limited set of cryptographic primitives, often only encryption (public and shared key) and concatenation. They also avoid low-level features of cryptographic algorithms, such as the commutativity and distributivity properties of RSA.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

We have recently seen the development of a number of new tools for the analysis of cryptographic protocols. Many of them are based on state exploration, that is, they try to find as many paths through the protocol as possible, in the hope that, if there is an error, it will be discovered. But, since the search space offered by a cryptographic protocol is infinite, this search alone cannot guarantee security if no attack is found. However, some state exploration tools do offer the ability to prove security results as well as find flaws by the use of theoretical results about the system that they are examining. In particular, the NRL Protocol Analyzer [4] allows its user to interactively prove lemmas that limit the size of its search space. If the resulting search space is finite, then it too can guarantee that a protocol is secure by performing an exhaustive search. However, the ability to make such guarantees brings with it certain limitations. In particular, most of the systems developed so far model only a very limited set of cryptographic primitives, often only encryption (public and shared key) and concatenation. They also avoid low-level features of cryptographic algorithms, such as the commutativity and distributivity properties of RSA.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 32 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

We have recently seen the development of a number of new tools for the analysis of cryptographic protocols. Many of them are based on state exploration, that is, they try to find as many paths through the protocol as possible, in the hope that, if there is an error, it will be discovered. But, since the search space offered by a cryptographic protocol is infinite, this search alone cannot guarantee security if no attack is found. However, some state exploration tools do offer the ability to prove security results as well as find flaws by the use of theoretical results about the system that they are examining. In particular, the NRL Protocol Analyzer [4] allows its user to interactively prove lemmas that limit the size of its search space. If the resulting search space is finite, then it too can guarantee that a protocol is secure by performing an exhaustive search. However, the ability to make such guarantees brings with it certain limitations. In particular, most of the systems developed so far model only a very limited set of cryptographic primitives, often only encryption (public and shared key) and concatenation. They also avoid low-level features of cryptographic algorithms, such as the commutativity and distributivity properties of RSA.

Key concepts: Cryptographic protocol, Cryptographic primitive, Cryptography, Computer science, Protocol (science), Computer security, Medicine, Alternative medicine

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Extending Formal Cryptographic Protocol Analysis Techniques for Group Protocols and Low-Level Cryptographic Primitives — Research Paper | ScholarLens