Fairness in Non-Repudiation Protocols

  • Wojciech Jamroga
  • Sjouke Mauw
  • Matthijs Melissen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7170)


We indicate two problems with the specifications of fairness that are currently used for the verification of non-repudiation and other fair-exchange protocols. The first of these problems is the implicit assumption of perfect information. The second problem is the possible lack of effectiveness. We solve both problems in isolation by giving new definitions of fairness, but leave the combined solution for further work. Moreover, we establish a hierarchy of various definitions of fairness, and indicate the consequences for existing work.


Security protocols verification non-repudiation and fair exchange protocols alternating-time temporal logic imperfect information 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Roscoe, A.: Intensional Specifications of Security Protocols. In: Proc. CSFW 1996, pp. 28–38. IEEE (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lowe, G.: A hierarchy of authentication specifications. In: 10th Computer Security Foundations Workshop (CSFW 1997), June 10-12, pp. 31–44. IEEE Computer Society, Rockport (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cremers, C., Mauw, S., de Vink, E.: Injective synchronisation: an extension of the authentication hierarchy. Theoretical Computer Science 367, 139–161 (2006); Special issue on ARSPA 2005, (P. Degano and L. Viganò, eds.)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benaloh, J., Tuinstra, D.: Receipt-free secret ballot elections (extended abstract). In: Proc. 26th ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 544–553. ACM (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Delaune, S., Kremer, S., Ryan, M.: Coercion-resistance and receipt-freeness in electronic voting. In: Proceedings of the 19th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop (CSFW 2006). IEEE Computer Society Press, Venice (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Deursen, T., Mauw, S., Radomirović, S., Vullers, P.: Secure Ownership and Ownership Transfer in RFID Systems. In: Backes, M., Ning, P. (eds.) ESORICS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5789, pp. 637–654. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Asokan, N., Shoup, V., Waidner, M.: Asynchronous Protocols for Optimistic Fair Exchange. In: Proc. of the IEEE Symp. in Security and Privacy, pp. 86–99 (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A., Kupferman, O.: Alternating-time temporal logic. Journal of the ACM 49, 672–713 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T., Mang, F., Qadeer, S., Rajamani, S., Tasiran, S.: MOCHA: Modularity in Model Checking. In: Vardi, M.Y. (ed.) CAV 1998. LNCS, vol. 1427, pp. 521–525. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chadha, R., Kremer, S., Scedrov, A.: Formal Analysis of Multiparty Contract Signing. Journal of Automated Reasoning 36, 39–83 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dashti, M.T.: Keeping Fairness Alive. PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ben-Or, M., Goldreich, O., Micali, S., Rivest, R.: A fair protocol for signing contracts. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory T-36, 40–46 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Even, S., Yacobi, Y.: Relations among public key signature systems (1980)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ezhilchelvan, P.D., Shrivastava, S.K.: Systematic Development of a Family of Fair Exchange Protocols. In: Proc. of the 17th Annual IFIP WG 11.3 Working Conference on Database and Applications Security, pp. 243–258. Kluwer Academic Press (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liu, P.: Avoiding loss of fairness owing to failures in fair data exchange systems. Decision Support Systems 31, 337–350 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kremer, S., Raskin, J.F.: A game-based verification of non-repudiation and fair exchange protocols. Journal of Computer Security 11 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jamroga, W., van der Hoek, W.: Agents that know how to play. Fundamenta Informaticae 63, 185–219 (2004)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schobbens, P.Y.: Alternating-time logic with imperfect recall. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 85, 82–93 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jamroga, W., Bulling, N.: Comparing variants of strategic ability. In: Proceedings of EUMAS 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhou, J., Gollmann, D.: An efficient non-repudiation protocol. In: Proceedings 10th Computer Security Foundations Workshop, pp. 126–132 (1997)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Markowitch, O., Kremer, S.: A Multi-Party Optimistic Non-Repudiation Protocol. In: Won, D. (ed.) ICISC 2000. LNCS, vol. 2015, pp. 109–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kremer, S., Markowitch, O.: Optimistic non-repudiable information exchange. In: Biemond, J. (ed.) 21th Symp. on Information Theory in the Benelux, Werkgemeenschap Informatie- en Communicatietheorie, Enschede, pp. 139–146 (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Garay, J., MacKenzie, P.: Abuse-free multi-party contract signing. Distributed Computing, 846–846 (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liu, Z., Pang, J., Zhang, C.: Verification of A Key Chain Based TTP Transparent CEM Protocol. UNU-IIST 60 (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhang, Y., Zhang, C., Pang, J., Mauw, S.: Game-Based Verification of Multi-Party Contract Signing Protocols. In: Degano, P., Guttman, J.D. (eds.) FAST 2009. LNCS, vol. 5983, pp. 186–200. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mukhamedov, A., Ryan, M.: Fair multi-party contract signing using private contract signatures. Information and Computation 206, 272–290 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mauw, S., Radomirovic, S., Dashti, M.T.: Minimal Message Complexity of Asynchronous Multi-party Contract Signing. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lomuscio, A., Qu, H., Raimondi, F.: MCMAS: A Model Checker for the Verification of Multi-Agent Systems. In: Bouajjani, A., Maler, O. (eds.) CAV 2009. LNCS, vol. 5643, pp. 682–688. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Berwanger, D., Chatterjee, K., De Wulf, M., Doyen, L., Henzinger, T.A.: Alpaga: A Tool for Solving Parity Games with Imperfect Information. In: Kowalewski, S., Philippou, A. (eds.) TACAS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5505, pp. 58–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wojciech Jamroga
    • 1
  • Sjouke Mauw
    • 1
  • Matthijs Melissen
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science and CommunicationUniversity of LuxembourgLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations