Advertisement

Security Goals and Evolving Standards

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8893)

Abstract

With security standards, as with software, we cannot expect to eliminate all security flaws prior to publication. Protocol standards are often updated because flaws are discovered after deployment. The constraints of the deployments, and variety of independent stakeholders, mean that different ways to mitigate a flaw may be proposed and debated.

In this paper, we propose a criterion for one mitigation to be at least as good as another from the point of view of security. This criterion is supported by rigorous protocol analysis tools. We also show that the same idea is applicable even when some approaches to mitigating the flaw require cooperation between the protocol and its application-level caller.

Keywords

Security Protocol Evolve Standard Expiration Time Security Goal Transport Layer Security 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Basin, D.A., Cremers, C., Meier, S.: Provably repairing the ISO/IEC 9798 standard for entity authentication. Journal of Computer Security 21(6), 817–846 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bhargavan, K., Delignat-Lavaud, A., Fournet, C., Pironti, A., Strub, P.-Y.: Triple handshakes and cookie cutters: Breaking and fixing authentication over TLS. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burrows, M., Abadi, M., Needham, R.: A logic of authentication. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 8, 18–36 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cervesato, I., Jaggard, A.D., Scedrov, A., Tsay, J.-K., Walstad, C.: Breaking and fixing public-key Kerberos. Inf. Comput. 206(2-4), 402–424 (2008)CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cremers, C., Mauw, S.: Operational Semantics and Verification of Security Protocols. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Datta, A., Derek, A., Mitchell, J.C., Roy, A.: Protocol composition logic (PCL). Electr. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 172, 311–358 (2007)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dierks, T., Rescorla, E.: The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2. RFC 5246 (Proposed Standard), Updated by RFCs 5746, 5878, 6176 (August 2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dougherty, D.J., Guttman, J.D.: Decidability for lightweight Diffie-Hellman protocols. In: IEEE Symposium on Computer Security Foundations (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Durgin, N., Lincoln, P., Mitchell, J., Scedrov, A.: Multiset rewriting and the complexity of bounded security protocols. Journal of Computer Security 12(2), 247–311 (1999), Initial version appeared Workshop on Formal Methods and Security Protocols (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guttman, J.D.: Shapes: Surveying crypto protocol runs. In: Cortier, V., Kremer, S. (eds.) Formal Models and Techniques for Analyzing Security Protocols. Cryptology and Information Security Series. IOS Press (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guttman, J.D.: Establishing and preserving protocol security goals. Journal of Computer Security 22(2), 201–267 (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lowe, G.: A hierarchy of authentication specification. In: CSFW, pp. 31–44 (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meadows, C.: The NRL protocol analyzer: An overview. The Journal of Logic Programming 26(2), 113–131 (1996)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meadows, C.: Analysis of the Internet Key Exchange Protocol using the NRL Protocol Analyzer. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 216–231 (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Meadows, C.: Formal methods for cryptographic protocol analysis: Emerging issues and trends. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 21(1), 44–54 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mitchell, J.C., Roy, A., Rowe, P., Scedrov, A.: Analysis of EAP-GPSK authentication protocol. In: Bellovin, S.M., Gennaro, R., Keromytis, A.D., Yung, M. (eds.) ACNS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5037, pp. 309–327. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Neuman, C., Yu, T., Hartman, S., Raeburn, K.: The Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5). RFC 4120 (Proposed Standard), Updated by RFCs 4537, 5021, 5896, 6111, 6112, 6113, 6649, 6806 (July 2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ramsdell, J.D., Guttman, J.D.: CPSA: A cryptographic protocol shapes analyzer (2009), http://hackage.haskell.org/package/cpsa
  19. 19.
    Rescorla, E., Ray, M., Dispensa, S., Oskov, N.: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Renegotiation Indication Extension. RFC 5746 (Proposed Standard) (February 2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Song, D.X.: Athena: A new efficient automated checker for security protocol analysis. In: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop. IEEE CS Press (June 1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thayer, F.J., Herzog, J.C., Guttman, J.D.: Strand spaces: Proving security protocols correct. Journal of Computer Security 7(2/3), 191–230 (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhu, L., Tung, B.: Public Key Cryptography for Initial Authentication in Kerberos (PKINIT). RFC 4556 (Proposed Standard), Updated by RFC 6112 (June 2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The MITRE CorporationBedfordUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper

Buy options