Cas Cremers

The Scyther Tool: Verification, Falsification, and Analysis of Security Protocols

With the rise of the Internet and other open networks, a large number of security protocols have been developed and deployed in order to provide secure communication. The analysis of such security protocols has turned out to be extremely difficult for humans, as witnessed by the fact that many protocols were found to be flawed after deployment. This has driven the research in formal analysis of security protocols. Unfortunately, there are no effective approaches yet for constructing correct and efficient protocols, and work on concise formal logics that might allow one to easily prove that a protocol is correct in a formal model, is still ongoing. The most effective approach so far has been automated falsification or verification of such protocols with state-of-the-art tools such as ProVerif [1] or the Avispa tools [2]. These tools have shown to be effective at finding attacks on protocols (Avispa) or establishing correctness of protocols (ProVerif).

The TAMARIN prover for the symbolic analysis of security protocols

The Tamarin prover supports the automated, unbounded, symbolic analysis of security protocols. It features expressive languages for specifying protocols, adversary models, and properties, and support for efficient deduction and equational reasoning. We provide an overview of the tool and its applications.

Distance Hijacking Attacks on Distance Bounding Protocols

After several years of theoretical research on distance bounding protocols, the first implementations of such protocols have recently started to appear. These protocols are typically analyzed with respect to three types of attacks, which are historically known as Distance Fraud, Mafia Fraud, and Terrorist Fraud. We define and analyze a fourth main type of attack on distance bounding protocols, called Distance Hijacking. This type of attack poses a serious threat in many practical scenarios. We show that many proposed distance bounding protocols are vulnerable to Distance Hijacking, and we propose solutions to make these protocols resilient to this type of attack. We show that verifying distance bounding protocols using existing informal and formal frameworks does not guarantee the absence of Distance Hijacking attacks. We extend a formal framework for reasoning about distance bounding protocols to include overshadowing attacks. We use the resulting framework to prove the absence of all of the found attacks for protocols to which our countermeasures have been applied.

Automated Analysis of Diffie-Hellman Protocols and Advanced Security Properties

We present a general approach for the symbolic analysis of security protocols that use Diffie-Hellman exponentiation to achieve advanced security properties. We model protocols as multiset rewriting systems and security properties as first-order formulas. We analyze them using a novel constraint-solving algorithm that supports both falsification and verification, even in the presence of an unbounded number of protocol sessions. The algorithm exploits the finite variant property and builds on ideas from strand spaces and proof normal forms. We demonstrate the scope and the effectiveness of our algorithm on non-trivial case studies. For example, the algorithm successfully verifies the NAXOS protocol with respect to a symbolic version of the eCK security model.

ARPKI: Attack Resilient Public-Key Infrastructure

We present ARPKI, a public-key infrastructure that ensures that certificate-related operations, such as certificate issuance, update, revocation, and validation, are transparent and accountable. ARPKI is the first such infrastructure that systematically takes into account requirements identified by previous research. Moreover, ARPKI is co-designed with a formal model, and we verify its core security property using the Tamarin prover. We present a proof-of-concept implementation providing all features required for deployment. ARPKI efficiently handles the certification process with low overhead and without incurring additional latency to TLS. ARPKI offers extremely strong security guarantees, where compromising n-1 trusted signing and verifying entities is insufficient to launch an impersonation attack. Moreover, it deters misbehavior as all its operations are publicly visible.

Unbounded verification, falsification, and characterization of security protocols by pattern refinement

We present a new verification algorithm for security protocols that allows for unbounded verification, falsification, and complete characterization. The algorithm provides a number of novel features, including: (1) Guaranteed termination, after which the result is either unbounded correctness, falsification, or bounded correctness. (2) Efficient generation of a finite representation of an infinite set of traces in terms of patterns, also known as a complete characterization. (3) State-of-the-art performance, which has made new types of protocol analysis feasible, such as multi-protocol analysis.

A framework for compositional verification of security protocols

Automatic security protocol analysis is currently feasible only for small protocols. Since larger protocols quite often are composed of many small protocols, compositional analysis is an attractive, but non-trivial approach. We have developed a framework for compositional analysis of a large class of security protocols. The framework is intended to facilitate automatic as well as manual verification of large structured security protocols. Our approach is to verify properties of component protocols in a multi-protocol environment, then deduce properties about the composed protocol. To reduce the complexity of multi-protocol verification, we introduce a notion of protocol independence and prove a number of theorems that enable analysis of independent component protocols in isolation. To illustrate the applicability of our framework to real-world protocols, we study a key establishment sequence in WiMAX consisting of three subprotocols. Except for a small amount of trivial reasoning, the analysis is done using automatic tools.

Examining indistinguishability-based security models for key exchange protocols: the case of CK, CK-HMQV, and eCK

Many recent key exchange (KE) protocols have been proven secure in the CK, CK-HMQV, or eCK security models. The exact relation between these security models, and hence the relation between the security guarantees provided by the protocols, is unclear. We show first that the CK, CK-HMQV, and eCK security models are formally incomparable. Second, we show that these models are also practically incomparable, by providing for each model attacks on protocols from the literature that are not considered by the other models. Third, our analysis enables us to find previously unreported flaws in protocol security proofs from the literature. We identify the causes of these flaws and show how they can be avoided.

Feasibility of multi-protocol attacks

Formal modeling and verification of security protocols typically assumes that a protocol is executed in isolation, without other protocols sharing the network. We investigate the existence of multi-protocol attacks on protocols described in literature. Given two or more protocols, that share key structures and are executed in the same environment, are new attacks possible? Out of 30 protocols from literature, we find that 23 are vulnerable to multi-protocol attacks. We identify two likely attack patterns and sketch a tagging scheme to prevent multi-protocol attacks.

Comparing State Spaces in Automatic Security Protocol Analysis

There are several automatic tools available for the symbolic analysis of security protocols. The models underlying these tools differ in many aspects. Some of the differences have already been formally related to each other in the literature, such as difference in protocol execution models or definitions of security properties. However, there is an important difference between analysis tools that has not been investigated in depth before: the explored state space. Some tools explore all possible behaviors, whereas others explore strict subsets, often by using so-called scenarios. We identify several types of state space explored by protocol analysis tools, and relate them to each other. We find previously unreported differences between the various approaches. Using combinatorial results, we determine the requirements for emulating one type of state space by combinations of another type. We apply our study of state space relations in a performance comparison of several well-known automatic tools for security protocol analysis. We model a set of protocols and their properties as homogeneously as possible for each tool. We analyze the performance of the tools over comparable state spaces. This work enables us to effectively compare these automatic tools, i.e., using the same protocol description and exploring the same state space. We also propose some explanations for our experimental results, leading to a better understanding of the tools.