TY - GEN
T1 - Computationally complete symbolic attacker and key exchange
AU - Bana, Gergei
AU - Hasebe, Koji
AU - Okada, Mitsuhiro
PY - 2013
Y1 - 2013
N2 - Recently, Bana and Comon-Lundh introduced the notion of computationally complete symbolic attacker to deliver unconditional computational soundness to symbolic protocol verification. First we explain the relationship between their technique and Fitting's embedding of classical logic into S4. Then, based on predicates for "key usability", we provide an axiomatic system in their framework to handle secure encryption when keys are allowed to be sent. We examine both IND-CCA2 and KDM-CCA2 encryptions, both symmetric and asymmetric situations. For unforgeability, we consider INT-CTXT encryptions. This technique does not require the usual limitations of computational soundness such as the absence of dynamic corruption, the absence of key-cycles or unambiguous parsing of bit strings. In particular, if a key-cycle possibly corrupts CCA2 encryption, our technique delivers an attack. If it does not endanger security, the security proof goes through. We illustrate how our notions can be applied in protocol proofs.
AB - Recently, Bana and Comon-Lundh introduced the notion of computationally complete symbolic attacker to deliver unconditional computational soundness to symbolic protocol verification. First we explain the relationship between their technique and Fitting's embedding of classical logic into S4. Then, based on predicates for "key usability", we provide an axiomatic system in their framework to handle secure encryption when keys are allowed to be sent. We examine both IND-CCA2 and KDM-CCA2 encryptions, both symmetric and asymmetric situations. For unforgeability, we consider INT-CTXT encryptions. This technique does not require the usual limitations of computational soundness such as the absence of dynamic corruption, the absence of key-cycles or unambiguous parsing of bit strings. In particular, if a key-cycle possibly corrupts CCA2 encryption, our technique delivers an attack. If it does not endanger security, the security proof goes through. We illustrate how our notions can be applied in protocol proofs.
KW - computational soundness
KW - security protocols
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84889060853&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84889060853&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1145/2508859.2516710
DO - 10.1145/2508859.2516710
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:84889060853
SN - 9781450324779
T3 - Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security
SP - 1231
EP - 1246
BT - CCS 2013 - Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
T2 - 2013 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS 2013
Y2 - 4 November 2013 through 8 November 2013
ER -