Advertisement

Finding a Middle Ground for Computer-Aided Cryptography

  • Evan AustinEmail author
  • Scott Batson
  • Peter Curry
  • Bryan Williams
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10931)

Abstract

Motivated by the ever-increasing difficulty of proofs of security and correctness, cryptographers have drawn inspiration from the more general software and hardware verification communities and integrated formal methods tools and techniques into their workflows. Though this practice of computer-aided cryptography is still comparatively young, it has spawned a number of automated cryptographic analysis tools. These tools can be categorized in one of two ways: tools focused on theoretical, or “provable,” aspects of security; and tools focused on verifying more practical implementation details. This paper discusses our motivation for, and early work towards, finding an approachable middle ground of the current cryptographic tool spectrum.

References

  1. 1.
    Barthe, G., Dupressoir, F., Grégoire, B., Kunz, C., Schmidt, B., Strub, P.-Y.: EasyCrypt: a tutorial. In: Aldini, A., Lopez, J., Martinelli, F. (eds.) FOSAD 2012-2013. LNCS, vol. 8604, pp. 146–166. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10082-1_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barthe, G., Grégoire, B., Zanella Béguelin, S.: Formal certification of code-based cryptographic proofs. SIGPLAN Not. 44(1), 90–101 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bellare, M., Rogaway, P.: Code-Based Game-Playing Proofs and the Security of Triple Encryption. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2004/331 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chevallier-Mames, B., Paillier, P., Pointcheval, D.: Encoding-free ElGamal encryption without random oracles. In: Yung, M., Dodis, Y., Kiayias, A., Malkin, T. (eds.) PKC 2006. LNCS, vol. 3958, pp. 91–104. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11745853_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Claessen, K., Hughes, J.: QuickCheck: a Lightweight Tool for Random Testing of Haskell Programs. In: Proceedings of the Fifth ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming, ICFP 2000, pp. 268–279. ACM, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Crockett, E., Peikert, C.: \(\Lambda \, o \, \lambda \): functional lattice cryptography. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, CCS 2016, pp. 993–1005. ACM, New York (2016). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2976749.2978402
  7. 7.
    Diffie, W., Hellman, M.: New directions in cryptography. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 22(6), 644–654 (1976)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Elgamal, T.: A public key cryptosystem and a signature scheme based on discrete logarithms. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 31(4), 469–472 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Erkök, L., Matthews, J.: High assurance programming in cryptol. In: Proceedings of the 5th Annual Workshop on Cyber Security and Information Intelligence Research: Cyber Security and Information Intelligence Challenges and Strategies, CSIIRW 2009, pp. 60:1–60:2. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Halevi, S.: A plausible approach to computer-aided cryptographic proofs. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2005/181 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koblitz, N.: Elliptic curve cryptosystems. Math. Comput. 48(177), 203–209 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shoup, V.: Sequences of games: a tool for taming complexity in security proofs. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2004/332 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. government work and its text is not subject to copyright protection in the United States; however, its text may be subject to foreign copyright protection 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Evan Austin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Scott Batson
    • 1
  • Peter Curry
    • 1
  • Bryan Williams
    • 1
  1. 1.SPAWAR Systems Center AtlanticNorth CharlestonUSA

Personalised recommendations