Date post: | 17-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | shavonne-boyd |
View: | 217 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Modeling and Analyzing Security Protocols using I/O Automata
Nancy Lynch, MIT CSAIL
DIMACS Security Workshop
June 7, 2004
1. Introduction
Goal: Methods of modeling and analyzing security protocols that are: Mathematically precise, Easy for people to use, Amenable to computer support, and Decomposable.
Approach: Use interacting state machine models: I/O automata (IOA), timed
I/O automata (TIOA), probabilistic I/O automata (PIOA). Separate issues involving component interactions from issues
involving cryptosystems. Use standard I/O automata proof methods: compositional
reasoning, invariants, and simulation relations. Works well for distributed algorithms---why not security protocols?
Decomposition
Separate issues as much as possible. Automata vs. cryptosystems:
Use I/O automata to model individual protocol participants, communication channels, external services, adversaries,…
Use abstract algebraic model for cryptosystems: Define explicitly which values are computable “easily” from
which other values. Abstracts away from number theory. I/O automata methods don’t contribute anything here.
Decompose the distributed algorithms.
Parallel composition of protocols: Analyze protocols separately, combine using general
theorems about automaton composition. Implementation vs. specification:
Give high-level automaton specification for a service, low-level automaton description of distributed implementation.
Show, using simulation relations and invariants, that the implementation satisfies the specification.
Successive refinement: Describe algorithms more and more specifically. Use simulation relations, invariants.
Decomposing distributed algorithms
Spec
Impl
External behavior models
Basis for compositional reasoning about protocols. Abstract away from internal behavior of automata with
external “traces” (IOA), or “timed traces” (TIOA), or “trace distributions” (PIOA). Traces include information about input and output events; not about
states, internal events. Trace pasting, projection theorems for I/O automata
composition. For compositional reasoning about particular kinds of
properties, traces must contain all information relevant for those properties.
Information recorded in traces Ordinary inputs and outputs
Operation invocations and responses. Input values and decision results.
For fault-tolerance properties: Traces contain explicit “fail” events. Possibly different kinds.
For timing properties: Traces contain real-time information.
For secrecy properties: “Learn” inputs, “reveal” outputs.
In this talk…
Describe a preliminary example, showing how the Diffie-Hellman Key Distribution protocol and Shared-Key Communication protocol compose to yield private communication.
Passive adversary only. From old [Lynch 99] CSFW paper. Use ordinary I/O automata, no timing, no probabilities. Extensions to more complex protocols, properties seem
possible now, using timed I/O automata and probabilistic I/O automata.
However, remains to be done.
Talk outline
1. Introduction 2. Cryptosystem model3. I/O Automata4. Some basic automata for security protocols5. Abstract service specifications
1. Private communication (PC)2. Key distribution (KD)
6. Implementing PC using abstract spec for KD7. Implementing KD using Diffie-Hellman8. Simple cryptosystem => richer cryptosystem9. Putting the pieces together:10. Conclusions
Related work
Interactive theorem-proving [Sheyner, Wing 00]
Modeled protocols from this work, proved claims using Isabelle/HOL [Nipkow].
I/O automata support for Isabelle provided by [Mueller].
Composition of security protocols: [Abadi, Fournet, Gonthier 98] [Canetti 01] …
Inductive reasoning methods for security protocols: [Paulson 98]
2. Cryptosystem model
Cryptosystem Signature
Type names, typed function names “Easy” function names
Sets for all type names Total functions for all function names
Term cryptosystem Elements of sets are congruence classes of terms over
the signature, with respect to some congruence relation.
Ex. 1: Shared-key cryptosystem
Domains: M (messages), K (keys) Functions:
enc: M, K → M dec: M, K → M MConst, a set of message constants: → M KConst, a set of key constants: → K
Easy functions: enc, dec Congruence: Smallest congruence on terms
satisfying equation: dec(enc(m,k),k) = m
Ex. 2: Base-exponent cryptosystem
For Diffie-Hellman key distribution Domains: B (bases), X (exponents) Functions:
exp: B, X → B BConst, base constants XConst1, XConst2, two sets of exponent constants (for
use by two parties) Easy functions: exp, BConst Congruence defined by:
exp(exp(b,x),y) = exp(exp(b,y),x)
Ex. 3: Structured-key cryptosystem
For combined shared-key communication and D-H key distribution protocols.
Domains: M, B, X (no K---keys replaced by base-exponent terms)
Functions: enc, dec, MConst, exp, BConst, XConst1, XConst2
(no KConst ) Easy functions: enc, dec, exp, BConst Congruence: Combine the equations:
dec(enc(m,b),b) = b exp(exp(b,x),y) = exp(exp(b,y),x)
3. I/O Automata [Lynch, Tuttle 87]
Actions π (input, output, internal) States s, start states Transitions (s, π, s’)
Input actions enabled in all states Execution s0, π1, s1, π2,… Trace, sequence of input and output actions
Externally-visible behavior A implements B: traces(A) is a subset of traces(B). Parallel composition:
Compatibility: No shared outputs. Identify same-named external actions. One output can match several inputs. Compositionality theorems: pasting, projection, substitutivity,
input output
I/O Automata proof methods
Invariant assertions: Property holds in all reachable states Prove by induction on length of execution.
Forward and backward simulation relations Imply one automaton implements another Prove by induction on length of execution of
implementation automaton. Compositional methods
Forward simulation from A to B:
Relation R from states(A) to states(B) satisfying:1. Each start state of A is R-related to some start state of B.
2. For each step (sA, π, s’A ) of A and each state sB of B with sA R sB, there is a “corresponding” sequence of steps of B. (Same trace, takes sB to s’B, where s’A R s’B.)
sA
s’BsB
s’A
π
R R
Timed and probabilistic I/O automata
Timed automata [Lynch, Vaandrager]: Adds time-passage steps or “trajectories”, to describe
what happens between discrete events. External behavior: Set of timed traces Simulation, compositionality results carry over.
Probabilistic automata [Segala]: Transitions: (state, action, distribution on states) External behavior: Set of trace distributions Forward simulation results carry over. Compositionality: Partial results. Work in progress
[Cheung, Lynch, Segala, Vaandrager].
Talk outline
1. Introduction 2. Cryptosystem model 3. I/O Automata 4. Some basic automata for security protocols5. Abstract service specifications
1. Private communication (PC)2. Key distribution (KD)
6. Implementing PC using abstract spec for KD7. Implementing KD using Diffie-Hellman8. Simple cryptosystem => richer cryptosystem9. Putting the pieces together:10. Conclusions
4. Some basic automata Environment Env(U,A,N) Signature allows it to communicate elements of universal
set U to adversaries in A.
However, in actual executions, it avoids communicating anything in N.
Env
learn(u)A
Insecure Channel IC(U,P,A)
Sends, receives messages in U correctly, between clients in P.
Allows (passive) adversaries in A to eavesdrop on messages in transit.
IC
IC-send(u) IC-receive(u)
eavesdrop(u)a
Eve
Eavesdropper Eve(P,A) Receives everything adversaries in A hear
(eavesdrop) from clients in P or learn from the environment.
Computes new values, using easy functions of the cryptosystem.
State includes “has” set. Only reveals values that it “has”.
eavesdrop(u)a
reveal(u)alearn(u)a
compute
5. Abstract service specifications
Model as I/O Automata. States allow assertional reasoning. Actions allow composition, define what must be preserved by
implementations. Private Communication service, PC(U,P,M,A):
Communicates messages in M reliably, between clients in P. Can reveal anything in U – M to adversaries in A.
Spec doesn’t mention separate components, keys---those aspects appear only in implementation description.
PCPC-send(m)p PC-receive(m)q
reveal(u)a
Key Distribution service
KD(U,P,K,A) Grants a single common key in K to clients in P. Does not grant any other values. Can reveal anything in U - K to adversaries in A.
grant(k)p
choose-key
reveal(u)a
KD
Talk outline
1. Introduction 2. Cryptosystem model 3. I/O Automata 4. Some basic automata for security protocols 5. Abstract service specifications:
1. Private communication (PC) 2. Key distribution (KD)
6. Implementing PC using abstract spec for KD 7. Implementing KD using Diffie-Hellman8. Simple cryptosystem => richer cryptosystem9. Putting the pieces together:10. Conclusions
6. Implementing PC using abstract KD
Encoder Encp,q: Encrypts messages from client p to client q using granted key. Sends encrypted messages on IC.
Decoder Decq,p: Decrypts messages from q arriving at p on IC using granted key. Delivers them to p.
System S1: Compose: Enc, Dec, KD (abstract), IC, Eve Env, for N = M union K Hide all but external PC actions.
PC-send
IC
Eve
Env
DecEnc
KD
PC-rcv
reveal
reveallearn
grant grant
eavesdrop
Proof that S1 implements PC
Forward simulation: PC’s message multiset is the union of S1’s multisets:
Messages at Enc Messages at Dec, decrypted with KD’s key Messages in IC, decrypted with KD’s key
Easy inductive argument. Uses invariants:
Key consistency No element of N = M union K is in IC or in Eve.has.
Stylized case analysis. Checked with Isabelle/HOL [Sheyner, Wing 00]
PC
S1S1
IC
Eve
Env
DH1 DH2
7. Implementing KD using Diffie-Hellman
DH1: Chooses x in XConst1. Sends exp(b0,x) to DH2. After receiving b from DH2, it
grants key exp(b,x) to client 1. DH2:
Symmetric. S2: Compose automata:
DH1, DH2, IC, Eve Env, for N = K union X Hide all but external KD
actions.
grant grant
eavesdrop
learn reveal
Proof that S2 implements KD
Another forward simulation: KD’s chosen key is obtained by:
If both XConsts are chosen in S2 then exponentiate b0 with both of them.
Else chosen key undefined.
Another easy inductive argument. Uses invariants:
Correctness of received messages No element of N = K union X is in IC or in Eve.has.
Another stylized case analysis, checked with Isabelle.
S2
KD
Talk outline
1. Introduction 2. Cryptosystem model 3. I/O Automata 4. Some basic automata for security protocols 5. Abstract service specifications:
1. Private communication (PC) 2. Key distribution (KD)
6. Implementing PC using abstract spec for KD 7. Implementing KD using Diffie-Hellman 8. Simple cryptosystem => richer cryptosystem9. Putting the pieces together:10. Conclusions
8. Simple → richer cryptosystem
Modify S1 and S2 to work with common structured-key cryptosystem instead of shared-key and base-exponent cryptosystems.
Show the resulting systems are still correct, using forward simulations to the original systems S1 and S2.
Example: S’1 = S1 with key space K = B2, the doubly-exponentiated base terms. Now assume Env avoids communicating M, K, and X. Also assume Env avoids W, the M messages encrypted any
number of times by elements of B – B2. Show forward simulation from S’1 to S1. So S’1 implements S1,so S’1 implements PC.
Key idea of proof: The richer cryptosystem doesn’t introduce new ways of computing any elements of M union K.
9. Putting the pieces together Compose the two
systems S’1 and S’2
using ordinary I/O automata composition.
Composed system implements PC, by general I/O automata pasting and projection theorems.
PC-send
IC
Eve
Env
DecEnc PC-rcv
reveal
reveallearn
grant grant
eavesdrop
IC
Eve
Env
DH1 DH2
DH1DH2
Putting the pieces together, cont’d
Combine adversaries: Forward simulation from combined Eve to two individual Eves. Main ideas:
Information that must not be learned in one sub-protocol is not revealed by the other sub-protocol.
Any information the combined Eve could acquire could also be acquired by either of the individual Eves.
The rest is easy… Combine IC channels:
One IC channel can simulate two IC channels. Another forward simulation.
Combine environments: Combined environments’ avoidance set is the union of the individual
environments’ avoidance sets. Yet another forward simulation.
The final algorithm
Compose systems S’1 and S’2 using ordinary I/O automata composition.
Merge Eves, ICs, Envs. Result implements PC,
by general I/O automata composition theorems.
PC-send
Eve
Env
DecEnc PC-rcv
reveallearn
grant grant
eavesdrop
IC
DH1 DH2
DH1 DH2
10. Conclusions
Summary: Shared-key communication + Diffie-Hellman Key
Distribution implement Private Communication. Values that should not be learned by adversary are
represented explicitly in external behavior. Compositional reasoning is used for combining the two
protocols: neither reveals information that the other should not learn.
Several kinds of decomposition are used: Subprotocols Levels of abstraction, simulation relations Cryptosystem vs. protocol issues
Future Work
More complex protocols, with active adversaries. Add timing, using Timed IOAs.
What are good properties to consider? Good protocol examples?
Add probabilities, using Probabilistic IOAs. Use simple probabilities to state indistinguishability
properties. But try to avoid considering messier “negligible”
probabilities. Work on compositional PIOA still in progress [Cheung,
Lynch, Segala, Vaandrager 04?].