Formal System Development with KIV

Balser, Michael; Reif, Wolfgang; Schellhorn, Gerhard; Stenzel, Kurt H.; Thums, Andreas

doi:10.1007/3-540-46428-x_25

Cited by 90 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of general purpose theorem provers with modelling notations like Z [10,29], Action Systems [4,19], or Abstract State Machines [6,9] usually requires a lot of expert knowledge in order to make efficient use of them when reasoning about formal models. This is not a problem of bad design of the theorem prover, but more a problem of bridging the gap between the notation and the logic underlying the theorem prover.…”

Section: Existing Tools For Modelling and Proofmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To some degree this is alleviated by the Isar language [22] that extends Isabelle with more legible proofs. Similarly, abstract state machines (ASM) have been used with the KIV theorem prover [6]. The refinement theory used with ASM is stated in KIV and the user has to state the relevant theorems (proof obligations).…”

Section: Existing Tools For Modelling and Proofmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An Open Extensible Tool Environment for Event-B

Abrial

Butler

Hallerstede

et al. 2006

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We consider modelling indispensable for the development of complex systems. Modelling must be carried out in a formal notation to reason and make meaningful conjectures about a model. But formal modelling of complex systems is a difficult task. Even when theorem provers improve further and get more powerful, modelling will remain difficult. The reason for this that modelling is an exploratory activity that requires ingenuity in order to arrive at a meaningful model. We are aware that automated theorem provers can discharge most of the onerous trivial proof obligations that appear when modelling systems. In this article we present a modelling tool that seamlessly integrates modelling and proving similar to what is offered today in modern integrated development environments for programming. The tool is extensible and configurable so that it can be adapted more easily to different application domains and development methods.

show abstract

Section: Existing Tools For Modelling and Proofmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Existing Tools For Modelling and Proofmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Open Extensible Tool Environment for Event-B

Abrial

Butler

Hallerstede

et al. 2006

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Program verification shall enhance the trustworthiness of software systems (e.g. [BR00]). Protocol verification shall detect vulnerabilities of cryptographic protocols (e.g.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Framework Based Approach for Formal Modeling and Analysis of Multi-level Attacks in Computer Networks

Rothmaier¹,

Krumm

2005

Formal Techniques for Networked and Distributed Systems - FORTE 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Attacks on computer networks are moving away from simple vulnerability exploits. More sophisticated attack types combine and depend on aspects on multiple levels (e.g. protocol and network level). Furthermore attacker actions, regular protocol execution steps, and administrator actions may be interleaved. Analysis based on human reasoning and simulation only has a slim chance to reveal attack possibilities. Formal methods are in principle wellsuited in this situation. Since complex scenarios have to be considered, however, high efforts are needed for modeling. Furthermore, automated analysis tools usually fail due to state space explosion. We propose a novel approach for modeling and analyzing such scenarios. It combines the high-level specification language cTLA with a computer network framework, optimization strategies, a translation tool, and the SPIN model checker. As a proof of feasibility we apply our approach to a multi-LAN scenario.

show abstract

“…Because the specification and verification environment KIV [2] offers strong proof support for algebraic specifications with higher order logic, verification of sequential programs with DL, and verification of temporal properties with interval temporal logic is currently implemented, this system was chosen as an implementation platform for the approach.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interactive Verification of Statecharts

Thums

Schellhorn

Ortmeier

et al. 2004

Integration of Software Specification Techniques for Applications in Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents an approach to the integration of statecharts, temporal logic and algebraic specification within an interactive verification environment. Currently some integrated formalisms exist [13,7], but there is no proof support for theses approaches. Also model checkers are able to prove temporal properties of statecharts [3,10], but they can only be used to verify properties based on a small, finite data domain.Our goal is to provide a uniform, interactive proof support for verifying temporal properties of statecharts with algebraic data types and functions over infinite data domains. As an implementation platform the KIV system [2] is used. The semantics of statecharts is based on [6], which formalizes the STATEMATE semantics of statecharts [12].

show abstract

Formal System Development with KIV

Cited by 90 publications

References 8 publications

An Open Extensible Tool Environment for Event-B

An Open Extensible Tool Environment for Event-B

A Framework Based Approach for Formal Modeling and Analysis of Multi-level Attacks in Computer Networks

Interactive Verification of Statecharts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About