Abstract
The KeY system offers a platform of software analysis tools for sequential Java. Foremost, this includes full functional verification against contracts written in the Java Modeling Language. But the approach is general enough to provide a basis for other methods and purposes: (i) complementary validation techniques to formal verification such as testing and debugging, (ii) methods that reduce the complexity of verification such as modularization and abstract interpretation, (iii) analyses of non-functional properties such as information flow security, and (iv) sound program transformation and code generation. We show that deductive technology that has been developed for full functional verification can be used as a basis and framework for other purposes than pure functional verification. We use the current release of the KeY system as an example to explain and prove this claim.
The authors gratefully acknowledge support by the German National Science Foundation (DFG) under projects http://www.key-project.org/DeduSec/DeduSec and http://www.se.tu-darmstadt.de/research/projects/albia/ALBIA both within http://www.spp-rs3.de/SPP 1496 “Reliably Secure Software Systems – RS3” and under project IMPROVE within SPP 1593 “Design For Future – Managed Software Evolution”, as well as by the European Research Council (ERC) grant 258405 for the http://fmt.cs.utwente.nl/research/projects/VerCors/VerCors project.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The prover closest to KeY in this regard is KIV [4].
- 2.
This formulation assumes a deterministic programming language, like sequential Java in the context of KeY.
- 3.
Objects other than arrays are not subject to the described mechanisms.
References
Ahrendt, W.: Using KeY. In: Beckert, B., Hähnle, R., Schmitt, P.H. (eds.) Verification of Object-Oriented Software. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4334, pp. 409–451. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Barnett, M., Chang, B.-Y.E., DeLine, R., Jacobs, B., M. Leino, K.R.: Boogie: a modular reusable verifier for object-oriented programs. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2005. LNCS, vol. 4111, pp. 364–387. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Filliâtre, J.-C., Marché, C.: The Why/Krakatoa/Caduceus platform for deductive program verification. In: Damm, W., Hermanns, H. (eds.) CAV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4590, pp. 173–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Stenzel, K.: A formally verified calculus for full Java Card. In: Rattray, C., Maharaj, S., Shankland, C. (eds.) AMAST 2004. LNCS, vol. 3116, pp. 491–505. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Harel, D., Kozen, D., Tiuryn, J.: Dynamic Logic. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)
Hoare, C.A.R.: An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Commun. ACM 12(10), 576–580, 583 (1969)
Leavens, G.T., Baker, A.L., Ruby, C.: Preliminary design of JML: A behavioral interface specification language for Java. SIGSOFT 31(3), 1–38 (2006)
Weiß, B.: Deductive verification of object-oriented software: dynamic frames, dynamic logic and predicate abstraction. Ph.D. Thesis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (2011)
Bruns, D., Mostowski, W., Ulbrich M.: Implementation-level verification of algorithms with KeY. Softw. Tools Technol. Transf. (Springer, Heidelberg) to appear. DOI:10.1007/s10009-013-0293-y
Meyer, B.: Applying “design by contract”. IEEE Comput. 25(10), 40–51 (1992)
Kassios, I.T.: The dynamic frames theory. Form. Asp. Comput. 23(3), 267–288 (2011)
Leino, K.R.M.: Dafny: an automatic program verifier for functional correctness. In: Clarke, E.M., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR-16 2010. LNCS, vol. 6355, pp. 348–370. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Jacobs, B., Smans, J., Philippaerts, P., Vogels, F., Penninckx, W., Piessens, F.: VeriFast: a powerful, sound, predictable, fast verifier for C and Java. In: Bobaru, M., Havelund, K., Holzmann, G.J., Joshi, R. (eds.) NFM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6617, pp. 41–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
Schulte, W., Songtao, X., Smans, J., Piessens, F.: A glimpse of a verifying C compiler. In: C/C++ Verification Workshop (2007)
Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Abstract interpretation: A unified lattice model for static analysis of programs by construction or approximation of fixpoints. In: Fourth ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Language, Los Angeles, pp. 238–252. ACM Press, New York (1977)
Bubel, R., Hähnle, R., Weiß, B.: Abstract interpretation of symbolic execution with explicit state updates. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Madelaine, E. (eds.) FMCO 2008. LNCS, vol. 5751, pp. 247–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement. In: Emerson, E.A., Sistla, A.P. (eds.) CAV 2000. LNCS, vol. 1855, pp. 154–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
M. Leino, K.R., Logozzo, F.: Loop invariants on demand. In: Yi, K. (ed.) APLAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3780, pp. 119–134. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Graf, S., Saïdi, H.: Construction of abstract state graphs with PVS. In: Grumberg, O. (ed.) CAV 1997. LNCS, vol. 1254, pp. 72–83. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)
Engel, C., Hähnle, R.: Generating unit tests from formal proofs. In: Gurevich, Y., Meyer, B. (eds.) TAP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4454, pp. 169–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Beckert, B., Gladisch, C.: White-box testing by combining deduction-based specification extraction and black-box testing. In: Gurevich, Y., Meyer, B. (eds.) TAP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4454, pp. 207–216. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)
Petiot, G., Kosmatov, N., Giorgetti, A., Julliand, J.: How test generation helps software specification and deductive verification in Frama-C. In: Seidl, M., Tillmann, N. (eds.) TAP 2014. LNCS, vol. 8570, pp. 204–211. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
Cadar, C., Godefroid, P., Khurshid, S., Pasareanu, C.S., Sen, K., Tillmann, N., Visser, W.: Symbolic execution for software testing in practice: preliminary assessment. In: Taylor, R.N., Gall, H., Medvidovic, N. (eds.) ICSE, pp. 1066–1071. ACM (2011)
Hentschel, M., Bubel, R., Hähnle, R.: Symbolic execution debugger (SED). In: Bonakdarpour, B., Smolka, S.A. (eds.) RV 2014. LNCS, vol. 8734, pp. 255–262. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
Hentschel, M., Hähnle, R., Bubel, R.: Visualizing unbounded symbolic execution. In: Seidl, M., Tillmann, N. (eds.) TAP 2014. LNCS, vol. 8570, pp. 82–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
King, J.C.: Symbolic execution and program testing. Commun. ACM 19(7), 385–394 (1976)
Dromey, R.G.: From requirements to design: Formalizing the key steps. In: 1st International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, SEFM, IEEE (2003)
Sabelfeld, A., Myers, A.C.: Language-based information-flow security. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 21(1), 5–19 (2003)
Barthe, G., D’Argenio, P.R., Rezk, T.: Secure information flow by self-composition. In: Proceedings of the 17th IEEE workshop on Computer Security Foundations, CSFW ’04, Washington, USA, pp. 100–115. IEEE CS (2004)
Darvas, Á., Hähnle, R., Sands, D.: A theorem proving approach to analysis of secure information flow. In: Hutter, D., Ullmann, M. (eds.) SPC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3450, pp. 193–209. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Scheben, C., Schmitt, P.H.: Efficient Self-composition for weakest precondition calculi. In: Jones, C., Pihlajasaari, P., Sun, J. (eds.) FM 2014. LNCS, vol. 8442, pp. 579–594. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
Beckert, B., Bruns, D., Klebanov, V., Scheben, C., Schmitt, P.H., Ulbrich, M.: Information flow in object-oriented software. In: Gupta, G., Peña, R. (eds.) Logic-Based Program Synthesis and Transformation, pp.15–32 (2013)
Scheben, C., Schmitt, P.H.: Verification of information flow properties of Java programs without approximations. In: Beckert, B., Damiani, F., Gurov, D. (eds.) FoVeOOS 2011. LNCS, vol. 7421, pp. 232–249. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
van Delft, B.: Abstraction, objects and information flow analysis. Master’s Thesis, Institute for Computing and Information Science, Radboud Uni Nijmegen (2011)
Klebanov, V.: Precise quantitative information flow analysis: A symbolic approach. Theor. Comput. Sci. 538, 124–139 (2014). (to appear)
Chen, Z.: Java Card Technology for Smart Cards: Architecture and Programmer’s Guide. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2000)
Oracle: Java Card 3 Platform Runtime Environment Specification, Classic Edition, Version 3.0.4., September 2012
Mostowski, W.: Formal reasoning about non-atomic Java Card methods in dynamic logic. In: Misra, J., Nipkow, T., Sekerinski, E. (eds.) FM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4085, pp. 444–459. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Marché, C., Rousset, N.: Verification of Java Card applets behavior with respect to transactions and card tears. In: Proceedings of Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM), Pune, India. IEEE CS Press (2006)
Mostowski, W.: A case study in formal verification using multiple explicit heaps. In: Beyer, D., Boreale, M. (eds.) FORTE 2013 and FMOODS 2013. LNCS, vol. 7892, pp. 20–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Ahrendt, W. et al. (2014). The KeY Platform for Verification and Analysis of Java Programs. In: Giannakopoulou, D., Kroening, D. (eds) Verified Software: Theories, Tools and Experiments. VSTTE 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8471. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12154-3_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12154-3_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-12153-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-12154-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)