Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userFormal Verification of Usage Control Models: A Case Study of UseCON Using TLA+
76
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
EPTCS
Publication date
2018
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Usage control models provide an integration of access control, digital rights, and trust management. To achieve this integration, usage control models support additional concepts such as attribute mutability and continuity of decision. However, these concepts may introduce an additional level of complexity to the underlying model, rendering its definition a cumbersome and prone to errors process. Applying a formal verification technique allows for a rigorous analysis of the interactions amongst the components, and thus for formal guarantees in respect of the correctness of a model. In this paper, we elaborate on a case study, where we express the high-level functional model of the UseCON usage control model in the TLA+ formal specification language, and verify its correctness for <=12 uses in both of its supporting authorisation models.
rate research
Read More
This paper presents two formal models of the Data Encryption Standard (DES), a first using the international standard LOTOS, and a second using the more recent process calculus LNT. Both models encode the DES in the style of asynchronous circuits, i.e., the data-flow blocks of the DES algorithm are represented by processes communicating via rendezvous. To ensure correctness of the models, several techniques have been applied, including model checking, equivalence checking, and comparing the results produced by a prototype automatically generated from the formal model with those of existing implementations of the DES. The complete code of the models is provided as appendices and also available on the website of the CADP verification toolbox.
Description Logics (DLs) are a family of languages used for the representation and reasoning on the knowledge of an application domain, in a structured and formal manner. In order to achieve this objective, several provers, such as RACER and FaCT++, have been implemented, but these provers themselves have not been yet certified. In order to ensure the soundness of derivations in these DLs, it is necessary to formally verify the deductions applied by these reasoners. Formal methods offer powerful tools for the specification and verification of proof procedures, among them there are methods for proving properties such as soundness, completeness and termination of a proof procedure. In this paper, we present the definition of a proof procedure for the Description Logic ALC, based on a semantic tableau method. We ensure validity of our prover by proving its soundness, completeness and termination properties using Isabelle proof assistant. The proof proceeds in two phases, first by establishing these properties on an abstract level, and then by instantiating them for an implementation based on lists.
We present a formal tool for verification of multivariate nonlinear inequalities. Our verification method is based on interval arithmetic with Taylor approximations. Our tool is implemented in the HOL Light proof assistant and it is capable to verify multivariate nonlinear polynomial and non-polynomial inequalities on rectangular domains. One of the main features of our work is an efficient implementation of the verification procedure which can prove non-trivial high-dimensional inequalities in several seconds. We developed the verification tool as a part of the Flyspeck project (a formal proof of the Kepler conjecture). The Flyspeck project includes about 1000 nonlinear inequalities. We successfully tested our method on more than 100 Flyspeck inequalities and estimated that the formal verification procedure is about 3000 times slower than an informal verification method implemented in C++. We also describe future work and prospective optimizations for our method.
The verification of many algorithms for calculating transcendental functions is based on polynomial approximations to these functions, often Taylor series approximations. However, computing and verifying approximations to the arctangent function are very challenging problems, in large part because the Taylor series converges very slowly to arctangent-a 57th-degree polynomial is needed to get three decimal places for arctan(0.95). Medina proposed a series of polynomials that approximate arctangent with far faster convergence-a 7th-degree polynomial is all that is needed to get three decimal places for arctan(0.95). We present in this paper a proof in ACL2(r) of the correctness and convergence rate of this sequence of polynomials. The proof is particularly beautiful, in that it uses many results from real analysis. Some of these necessary results were proven in prior work, but some were proven as part of this effort.
We present an industrial case study that demonstrates the practicality and effectiveness of Symbolic Quick Error Detection (Symbolic QED) in detecting logic design flaws (logic bugs) during pre-silicon verification. Our study focuses on several microcontroller core designs (~1,800 flip-flops, ~70,000 logic gates) that have been extensively verified using an industrial verification flow and used for various commercial automotive products. The results of our study are as follows: 1. Symbolic QED detected all logic bugs in the designs that were detected by the industrial verification flow (which includes various flavors of simulation-based verification and formal verification). 2. Symbolic QED detected additional logic bugs that were not recorded as detected by the industrial verification flow. (These additional bugs were also perhaps detected by the industrial verification flow.) 3. Symbolic QED enables significant design productivity improvements: (a) 8X improved (i.e., reduced) verification effort for a new design (8 person-weeks for Symbolic QED vs. 17 person-months using the industrial verification flow). (b) 60X improved verification effort for subsequent designs (2 person-days for Symbolic QED vs. 4-7 person-months using the industrial verification flow). (c) Quick bug detection (runtime of 20 seconds or less), together with short counterexamples (10 or fewer instructions) for quick debug, using Symbolic QED.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
