首页> 外文会议>International Workshop on Security Protocols >A Protocol’s Life After Attacks...
【24h】

A Protocol’s Life After Attacks...

机译:攻击后的议定书的生活......

获取原文

摘要

I am going to be speaking about protocol verification again; I’m going to take a rather different perspective from the one we normally take, and I’ll be talking about what happens after an attack takes place. Is there a life for a protocol beyond the attacks? We all know about verification. On the one hand we have the model checking community trying to find a witness of an attack, trying to find if something went wrong and why the specific property of interest failed. On the other hand we have the opposite approach, assuring that there’s no such witness therefore the specific property holds. But the question here is, is this the whole story? It appears that everything is about finding the attack: is there an attack, is there no attack against confidentiality or authentication? It appears kind of weird. Is it only the attack we are really interested in? Is this really all we should look at? I’ll try and convince you that there’s something more. So, let’s suppose for a minute we own a jewellers, and one day we find that the main window has been completely smashed by someone. In the worst case there is no-one around and basically all we can do is suspect anyone, any passer-by, because there’s really no evidence against anyone. If we’re luckier, we could find the people there while they’re still at work carrying away the stuff. Basically we detect who actually mounted the attack and we’re kind of happy with that, as we’re sure who the attacker is because we saw them. But we can even do more than that, maybe we have time to call the police, and the attackers will be caught, punished, and sent to jail, so we basically retaliate against them. If you move this to a different context perhaps retaliating means that I go up to the attacker’s window and smash the window. Anyway, this is just a general notion of punishment and retaliation. This is certainly about the best we can do. This line attempts to convince us that there are some measures we normally take after an attack takes place in the real world. So the idea here is to apply these very same concepts to the world of security protocols and see what we can get out of it.
机译:我将再次谈论协议验证;我将从我们通常采取的那个采取相当不同的角度,我会谈论在发生攻击后发生的事情。是否存在超出攻击的协议的生活?我们都知道验证。一方面,我们有模型检查社区试图找到一个攻击的证人,试图找到一些出错的东西,以及为什么感兴趣的特定财产失败。另一方面,我们有相反的方法,确保没有这样的证人因此的特定财产。但这里的问题是,这是整个故事吗?看起来一切都是关于找到攻击的一切:是否有攻击,是没有攻击保密或身份验证?看起来很奇怪。这只是我们真正感兴趣的攻击吗?这真的是我们应该看的吗?我会试着说服你有更多的东西。所以,让我们假设一分钟我们拥有一名珠宝商,有一天我们发现主窗口已经完全被某人砸碎了。在最坏的情况下,没有一个,基本上我们所能做的就是怀疑任何人,任何路人,因为真的没有任何证据。如果我们幸运的话,我们可以在那里找到那里的人,而他们仍然在携带这些东西。基本上我们发现谁实际上安装了攻击,我们很高兴,因为我们确定攻击者是谁,因为我们看到了他们。但我们甚至可以做到这一点,也许我们有时间报警,攻击者将被抓住,惩罚并被送到监狱,所以我们基本上报复了他们。如果您将此移动到不同的上下文,也许报复意味着我上升到攻击者的窗口并粉碎窗口。无论如何,这只是惩罚和报复的一般概念。这肯定是我们能做的最好的事情。这条线试图让我们说服我们在现实世界发生袭击后,我们通常采取一些措施。所以这里的想法是向安全协议世界应用这些非常相同的概念,看看我们可以摆脱它。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号