Proceedings 10th Computer Security Foundations Workshop
DOI: 10.1109/csfw.1997.596779
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Casper: a compiler for the analysis of security protocols

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
177
0

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 256 publications
(177 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
177
0
Order By: Relevance
“…An identical interface is also an important precondition for reactive simulatability, i.e., the security notion. One can see protocol descriptions over this interface as a low-level symbolic representation as they exist in several other frameworks, and it should be possible to compile higher-level descriptions into it following the ideas first developed in [24]. The local names are called handles and chosen as successive natural numbers for simplicity.…”
Section: Abstraction From Probabilism and Participant Knowledgementioning
confidence: 99%
“…An identical interface is also an important precondition for reactive simulatability, i.e., the security notion. One can see protocol descriptions over this interface as a low-level symbolic representation as they exist in several other frameworks, and it should be possible to compile higher-level descriptions into it following the ideas first developed in [24]. The local names are called handles and chosen as successive natural numbers for simplicity.…”
Section: Abstraction From Probabilism and Participant Knowledgementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Alternatively, time is allowed to pass without changing the state of the specification. The compiler Casper [12] produces CSP models of security protocols from more abstract descriptions. Much of the above model was produced using Casper.…”
Section: Specification Processesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To verify the protocol, we use a form of formal methods approach based on Casper/FDR tool [17]. The Casper tool accepts an abstract, human-friendly description of the system and compiles it into CSP code, suitable for the FDR [13] checker.…”
Section: Verifying Security Protocols Using Formal Methods and Caspermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Aliveness assertion checks the availability of the participants, e.g., the first Aliveness check Aliveness (EP, M) states that when M completes a run of the protocol, apparently with EP, then EP has previously been running the same protocol. Note that EP may have thought he was running the protocol with someone other than M [17]. A stronger definition of the above Aliveness is specified by the Weak Agreement, for instance WeakAgreement (EP,M) assertion could be interpreted as follows: if M has completed a run of the protocol with EP, then EP has previously been running the protocol, apparently with M. Generally, failing to meet the WeakAgreement assertions implies the failure to meet the Aliveness ones.…”
Section: The Formal Verification Of the Mobile Ethernet Protocolmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation