J. McDermott
ABSTRACT
This paper argues that the existing model-driven architecture paradigm does not adequately cover the visual modeling of security protocols: sequences of interactions between principals. A security protocol modeling formalism should be not only well-defined but also support event-based, compositional, comprehensive, laconic, lucid, sound, and complete modeling. Candidate visual approaches from both the OMG's MDA and other more well-defined formalisms fail to satisfy one or more of these criteria. By means of two example security protocol models, we present the GSPML visual formalism as a solution.
- J. Baeten and W. Weijland. Process Algebra. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge University Press, 1990.]] Google Scholar
Digital Library
- D. Basin, J. Doser, and T. Lodderstedt. Model driven security for process-oriented systems. In Proc. Eighth ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies, Como, Italy, June 2003.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Bergstra and J. Klop. Fixed point semantics in process algebra. Technical report, Mathematical Centre, Amsterdam, 1982.]]Google Scholar
- S. Brackin. A HOL extension of GNY for automatically analyzing cryptographic protocols. In Proc. 9th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop, Kenmare, County Kerry, Ireland, 1996.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Burrows, M. Abadi, and R. Needham. A logic of authentication. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, (426):233--271, 1989.]]Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Cerone. From process algebra to visual language. Technical Report 01--36, Software Verification Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Queensland 4072, Australia, October 2001.]]Google Scholar
- I. Cervesato and C. Meadows. A fault-tree representation of NPATRL security requirements. In Workshop on Issues in Theory of Security 2003, 2003.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. Cleaveland, X. Du, and S. Smolka. GCCS: A graphical coordination language for system specification. In 4th International Conference on Coordination Models and Languages, pages 284--298, Limassol, Cyprus, 2000.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Cleaveland, J. Gada, P. Lewis, S. Smolka, O. Sokolsky, and S. Zhang. The Concurrency Factory: practical tools for specification, simulation, verification and implementation of concurrent systems. In G. Belloch, K. Chandy, and S. Jagannathan, editors, Proc. DIMACS Workshop on Specification of Parallel Algorithms. AMS, May 1994.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- W. Damm and D. Harel. LSCs: Breathing life into message sequence charts. Formal Methods in System Design, 19, 2001.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Epstein and R. Sandhu. Towards a UML based approach to role engineering. In Proc. Fourth ACM Workshop on Role-Based Access Control, Fairfax, Virginia, USA, October 1999.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- F. Fabrega, J. Herzog, and J. Guttman. Strand spaces: Proving security protocols correct. Journal of Computer Security, 7:191--230, 1999.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Gilmore and M. Gribaudo. Graphical modelling of process algebras with DrawNET. In Proc. Workshop on Petri Nets and Performance Models (PNPM '03), Urbanna, Illinois, USA, September 2--5 2003.]]Google Scholar
- G. Guizzardi, L. Pires, and M. von Sinderen. An ontology-based approach for evaluating domain appropriateness and comprehensibility appropriateness of modeling languages. In 8th ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. on Model-Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, Montego Bay, Jamaica, 2005.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Gurr. Effective diagrammatic communication: Syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic issues. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 10, 1999.]]Google Scholar
- D. Harel. Statecharts: a visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming, 8:231--274, 1987.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Harel and E. Gery. Executable object modeling with statecharts. IEEE Computer, 30(7), July 1997.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Henderson, R. Walters, and S. Crouch. Implementing hierarchical features in a graphically based formal modelling language. In Proc. 28th Int. Computer Software and Applications Conf. COMPSAC '04, pages 92--98, Hong Kong, September 2004.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Hilderink. A graphical modeling language for specifying concurrency based on CSP. In Proc. Communicating Process Architectures 2002, Reading, England, September 2002.]]Google Scholar
- J. Hillston. A Compositional Approach to Performance Modelling. Cambridge University Press, 1996.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Hoare. Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall International, 1985.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Jovanovic, B. Orlic, G. Liet, and J. Broenink. gCSP: a graphical tool for designing CSP systems. In Proc. Communicating Process Architectures 2004, Headington, England, September 2004.]]Google Scholar
- J. Jürjens. UMLsec: extending uml for secure systems development. In Proc. UML 2002, Dresden, Germany, September 2002.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Landin. The next 700 programming languages. CACM, 9(3), 1966.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Lichota, G. Hammonds, and S. Brackin. Verifying the correctness of cryptographic protocols using Convince. In Proc. 12th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, San Diego, California, USA, December 1996.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. McLean. A general theory of composition for trace sets closed under selective interleaving functions. In Proc. IEEE Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, Oakland, California, USA, May 1994.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Meadows. The NRL protocol analyzer: an overview. The Journal of Logic Programming, 26(2):113--131, 1996.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- V. Mencl. Enhancing component behavior specifications with port state machines. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 101C:129--153, 2004. Special issue: Proceedings of the Workshop on the Compositional Verifications of UML Models, CVUML, Ed. F. de Boer and M. Bonsangue.]]Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Millen and G. Denker. CAPSL and MuCAPSL. Journal of Telecommunications and Information Technology, pages 16--27, March 2002.]]Google Scholar
- G. Milne. Formal Specification and Verification of Digital Systems. McGraw-Hill, 1994.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Milner. Communication and Concurrency. International Series in Computer Science. Prentice-Hall, 1989.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Object Management Group. Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure, Version 2.0, final adopted specification ptc/03-08-02 edition, August 2003.]]Google Scholar
- C. Petri. Kommunikation mit Automaten. PhD thesis, Bonn: Institut für Mathematik, 1962. Available as Technical Report RADC-TR-65-377, vol. 1, 1966, pages:supl. 1, English Translation.]]Google Scholar
- P. Ryan and S. Schneider. Process algebra and non-interference. In Proc. 12th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop, Mordano, Italy, June 1999.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Ryan and S. Schneider. Modelling and Analysis of Security Protocols. Addison-Wesley, 2001.]]Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Saul and A. Hutchison. Enhanced security protocol engineering through a unified multidimensional framework. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 21(1), January 2003.]]Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Schneider. Verifying the correctness of authentication protocols in CSP. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 24(9):741--758, September 1998.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Selic. The pragmatics of model-driven development. IEEE Software, pages 19--25, September/October 2003.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Song, S. Berezin, and A. Perrig. Athena: a novel approach to efficient automatic security protocol analysis. Journal of Computer Security, 9:47--74, 2001.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Tenzer and P. Stevens. Modelling recursive calls with UML state diagrams. In Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering 2003, LNCS 2621, pages 135--149, Warsaw, Poland, April 2003. Springer-Verlag.]]Google Scholar
- E. Tufte. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Graphics Press, Cheshire, Connecticut, 2001.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Walters. Automating checking of models built using a graphically based formal modelling language. Journal of Systems and Software, 71(1):55--64, 2005.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Visual security protocol modeling
Recommendations
A formalism for visual security protocol modeling
Existing visual modeling paradigms do not adequately cover the visual modeling of security protocols: sequences of interactions between principals in a security system. A visual formalism for security protocol modeling should not only be well-defined ...
A Modeling Framework for Generating Security Protocol Specifications
SYNASC '08: Proceedings of the 2008 10th International Symposium on Symbolic and Numeric Algorithms for Scientific ComputingWe propose a modeling framework for generating securityprotocol specifications. The generated protocol specifications rely on the use of a sequential and a semantical component. The first component defines protocol properties such as preconditions, ...
A Security Protocol Compiler Generating C Source Codes
ISA '08: Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Information Security and Assurance (isa 2008)In this paper, we propose a security protocol compiler that automatically generates security protocol modules based on a security protocol definition. Our security compiler loads a security protocol definition file that can be defined as a high-level ...
Comments