Formally sound implementations of security protocols with JavaSPI. (English) Zbl 1382.68027

Summary: Designing and coding security protocols is an error prone task. Several flaws are found in protocol implementations and specifications every year. Formal methods can alleviate this problem by backing implementations with rigorous proofs about their behavior. However, formally-based development typically requires domain specific knowledge available only to few experts and the development of abstract formal models that are far from real implementations. This paper presents a Java-based protocol design and implementation framework, where the user can write a security protocol symbolic model in Java, using a well defined subset of the language that corresponds to applied \(\pi\)-calculus. This Java model can be symbolically executed in the Java debugger, formally verified with ProVerif, and further refined to an interoperable Java implementation of the protocol. Soundness theorems are provided to prove that, under some reasonable assumptions, a simulation relation relates the Java refined implementation to the symbolic model verified by ProVerif, so that, for the usual security properties, a property verified by ProVerif on the symbolic model is preserved in the Java refined implementation. The applicability of the framework is evaluated by developing an extensive case study on the popular SSL protocol.


68M12 Network protocols
68P25 Data encryption (aspects in computer science)
68Q60 Specification and verification (program logics, model checking, etc.)
Full Text: DOI Link


[1] Almeida JB, Bangerter E, Barbosa M, Krenn S, Sadeghi AR, Schneider T (2010) A certifying compiler for zero-knowledge proofs of knowledge based on Σ-protocols. In: 15th European conference on research in computer security (ESORICS 2010). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 6345. Springer, Berlin, pp 151-167
[2] Almeida JB, Barbosa M, Barthe G, Dupressoir F (2013) Certified computer-aided cryptography: efficient provably secure machine code from high-level implementations. In: 2013 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security (CCS 2013), ACM, pp 1217-1230
[3] Avanesov T, Chevalier Y, Mekki MA, Rusinowitch M (2012) Web services verification and prudent implementation. In: Data privacy management and autonomous spontaneus security. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 7122. Springer, Berlin, pp 173-189
[4] Abadi, M; Fournet, C, Mobile values, new names, and secure communication, ACM SIGPLAN Not, 36, 104-115, (2001) · Zbl 1323.68398
[5] Al Fardan NJ, Paterson KG (2013) Lucky thirteen: breaking the TLS and DTLS record protocols. In: 2013 IEEE symposium on security and privacy (S & P 2013), IEEE, pp 526-540
[6] Aizatulin M, Gordon AD, Jürjens J (2012) Computational verification of C protocol implementations by symbolic execution. In: 2012 ACM conference on computer and communications security (CCS 2012), ACM, pp 712-723
[7] Apple goto fail bug (2014) CVE-2014-1266. https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2014-1266
[8] Avalle, M; Pironti, A; Pozza, D; Sisto, R, Javaspi: a framework for security protocol implementation, Int J Secure Softw Eng, 2, 34-48, (2011)
[9] Avalle, M; Pironti, A; Sisto, R, Formal verification of security protocol implementations: a survey, Form Asp Comput, 26, 99-123, (2014)
[10] Avalle M, Pironti A, Sisto R, Pozza D (2011) The JavaSPI framework for security protocol implementation. In: 6th international conference on availability, reliability and security (ARES 2011), IEEE Computer Society, pp 746-751
[11] Albrecht MR, Paterson KG, Watson G (2009) Plaintext recovery attacks against ssh. In: IEEE symposium on security and privacy (S & P 2009), IEEE, pp 16-26
[12] Bhargavan K, Corin R, Deniélou PM, Fournet C, Leifer JJ (2009) Cryptographic protocol synthesis and verification for multiparty sessions. In: 22nd IEEE computer security foundations symposium (CSF 2009), IEEE Computer Society, pp 124-140
[13] Bettassa Copet P, Pironti A, Pozza D, Sisto R, Vivoli P (2012) Visual model-driven design, verification and implementation of security protocols. In: IEEE 14th international symposium on high-assurance systems engineering (HASE 2012), IEEE, pp 62-65
[14] Basin, D; Doser, J; Lodderstedt, T, Model driven security: from UML models to access control infrastructures, ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol, 15, 39-91, (2006)
[15] Bhargavan, K; Fournet, C; Gordon, AD; Tse, S, Verified interoperable implementations of security protocols, ACM Trans Program Lang Syst, 31, 1-61, (2008) · Zbl 1137.68323
[16] Blanchet B (2001) An efficient cryptographic protocol verifier based on prolog rules. In: 14th IEEE workshop on computer security foundations (CSF 2001), IEEE Computer Society, pp 82-96
[17] Blanchet, B, Automatic verification of correspondences for security protocols, J Comput Secur, 17, 363-434, (2009)
[18] Bhargavan K, Lavaud AD, Fournet C, Pironti A, Strub PY (2014) Triple handshakes and cookie cutters: breaking and fixing authentication over TLS. In: IEEE symposium on security and privacy (S & P 2014), IEEE, pp 98-113
[19] Bierman G, Parkinson M, Pitts A (2003) MJ: an imperative core calculus for Java and Java with effects. Technical report 563, Cambridge University Computer Laboratory
[20] Cade D, Blanchet B (2012) From computationally-proved protocol specifications to implementations. In: 7th international conference on availability, reliability and security (ARES 2012), IEEE Computer Society, pp 65-74
[21] Dupressoir, F; Gordon, AD; Jürjens, J; Naumann, DA, Guiding a general-purpose C verifier to prove cryptographic protocols, J Comput Secur, 22, 823-866, (2014)
[22] Dolev, D; Yao, A, On the security of public key protocols, IEEE Trans Inf Theory, 29, 198-207, (1983) · Zbl 0502.94005
[23] GnuTLS certificate verification issue (2014) CVE-2014-0092. https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2014-0092
[24] Gorrieri R, Versari C (2015) Transition systems and behavioral equivalences. Springer, Berlin, pp 21-79 · Zbl 1333.68001
[25] Heartbleed bug (2014) CVE-2014-0160. https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2014-0160
[26] Heintze, N; Tygar, JD, A model for secure protocols and their compositions, IEEE Trans Softw Eng, 22, 16-30, (1996)
[27] Jürjens J (2001) Secrecy-preserving refinement. In: Fiadeiro J, Zave P (eds) International symposium on formal methods Europe (FME). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2021. Springer, Berlin, pp 135-152 · Zbl 0987.68891
[28] Jürjens J: Secure systems development with UML. Springer, Berlin (2005) · Zbl 1054.68031
[29] Kiyomoto S, Ota H, Tanaka T (2008) A security protocol compiler generating C source codes. In: Information security and assurance, IEEE, pp 20-25
[30] Montrieux L, Jürjens J, Haley CB, Yu Y, Schobbens PY, Toussaint H (2010) Tool support for code generation from a umlsec property. In: IEEE/ACM international conference on automated software engineering (ASE 2010), ACM, pp 357-358
[31] O’Shea N (2008) Using elyjah to analyse Java implementations of cryptographic protocols. In: Joint workshop on foundations of computer security, automated reasoning for security protocol analysis and issues in the theory of security, pp 221-226
[32] Pironti A, Sisto R (2007) An experiment in interoperable cryptographic protocol implementation using automatic code generation. In IEEE Symposium on computers and communications, pages 839-844. IEEE
[33] Pironti, A; Sisto, R, Safe abstractions of data encodings in formal security protocol models, Form Asp Comput, 26, 125-167, (2014) · Zbl 1322.68070
[34] Rescorla E, Ray M, Dispensa S, Oskov N (2010) Transport layer security (TLS) renegotiation indication extension. RFC 5746
[35] Song DX, Perrig A, Phan D (2001) AGVI: automatic generation, verification, and implementation of security protocols. In: 13th international conference on computer aided verification (CAV 2001). Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2102. Springer, Berlin, pp 241-245 · Zbl 0991.68648
[36] The Legion of Bouncy Castle. Bouncy castle crypto API. https://www.bouncycastle.org/java.html
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.