tamarin-prover-0.8.0.0: data/examples/csf12/JKL_TS2_2004_KI_wPFS.spthy
theory JKL_TS2_2004_KI_wPFS
begin
builtins: hashing, diffie-hellman
section{* Jeong, Katz, Lee : TS2 (2004) *}
/*
* Protocol: JKL-TS2-2004
* Modeler: Cas Cremers
* Date: January 2012
* Source: "One-Round Protocols for Two-Party Authenticated Key Exchange"
* Jeong, Katz, Lee, 2004
*
* Status: working
*/
/* Protocol rules */
rule generate_ltk:
[ Fr(~lk) ] -->
[ !Ltk( $A, ~lk ), !Pk( $A, 'g'^~lk ), Out( 'g'^~lk ) ]
rule Init_1:
[ Fr( ~ekI ), !Ltk( $I, ~lkI ) ]
--[ SidI_1(~ekI,$I,$R, 'g'^~ekI ) ]->
[ Init_1( ~ekI, $I, $R, ~lkI, 'g'^~ekI ),
!Ephk(~ekI),
Out( 'g'^~ekI ) ]
rule Init_2:
[ Init_1( ~ekI, $I, $R, ~lkI , hkI), In( Y ), !Pk( $R,'g'^~lkR ) ]
--[SidI_2( ~ekI, $I, $R, hkI, Y,
h( < hkI, Y, Y^~ekI, ('g'^~lkR)^~lkI > ) ) ]->
[ !Sessk( ~ekI,
h( < hkI, Y, Y^~ekI, ('g'^~lkR)^~lkI > ) ) ]
rule Resp_1:
[ In( X ), Fr( ~ekR ), !Ltk($R, ~lkR), !Pk($I, 'g'^~lkI) ]
--[ SidR_1( ~ekR, $I, $R, X, 'g'^~ekR ,
h( < X, 'g'^~ekR, X^~ekR, ('g'^~lkI)^~lkR > ) ) ]->
[ Out( 'g'^~ekR ),
!Ephk(~ekR),
!Sessk( ~ekR,
h( < X, 'g'^~ekR, X^~ekR, ('g'^~lkI)^~lkR > ) ) ]
rule Sessk_reveal:
[ !Sessk(~tid, k) ]
--[ SesskRev(~tid) ]->
[ Out(k) ]
rule Ephk_reveal:
[ !Ephk(~ekI) ]
--[ EphkRev(~ekI) ]->
[ Out(~ekI) ]
rule Ltk_reveal:
[ !Ltk($A, k) ]
--[ LtkRev($A) ]->
[ Out(k) ]
/* Security properties */
/*
lemma key_agreement_reachable:
"not (Ex #i1 #i2 ekI ekR I R k hkI hkR.
SidI_2(ekI, I, R, hkI, hkR, k) @ i1 & SidR_1(ekR, I, R, hkI, hkR, k) @ i2)"
*/
/* An attack is valid in the security model if the session key of the test session is deduced and
the test session is clean.
*/
lemma JKL2008_2_initiator_key:
"not (Ex #i1 #i2 ttest I R k hkI hkR.
SidI_2(ttest, I, R, hkI, hkR, k) @ i1 & K( k ) @ i2
/* Not ephemeral-key-reveal */
& (All #i3 t. EphkRev( t ) @ i3 ==> F)
/* Not session-key-reveal of test thread. */
& (All #i3. SesskRev( ttest ) @ i3 ==> F)
/* Not session-key-reveal of partner thread. */
& (All #i3 #i4 tpartner kpartner.
SidR_1( tpartner,I,R,hkI,hkR,kpartner ) @i3
& SesskRev( tpartner ) @ i4 ==> F)
/* If there is no partner thread, then there is no longterm-key-reveal for
the intended partner.
(We model wpfs, for pfs, add i1 < i3 to conclusion) */
& (All #i3. LtkRev( I ) @ i3 ==>
(Ex #i4 tpartner kpartner.
/* (i1 < i3) | */
SidR_1( tpartner,I,R,hkI,hkR,kpartner ) @i4))
& (All #i3. LtkRev( R ) @ i3 ==>
(Ex #i4 tpartner kpartner.
/* (i1 < i3) | */
SidR_1( tpartner,I,R,hkI,hkR,kpartner ) @i4))
)"
/* An attack is valid in the security model if the session key of the test session is deduced and
the test session is clean.
*/
lemma JKL2008_2_responder_key:
"not (Ex #i1 #i2 ttest I R k hkI hkR.
SidR_1(ttest, I, R, hkI, hkR, k) @ i1 & K( k ) @ i2
/* Not ephemeral-key-reveal */
& (All #i3 t. EphkRev( t ) @ i3 ==> F)
/* Not session-key-reveal of test thread. */
& (All #i3. SesskRev( ttest ) @ i3 ==> F)
/* Not session-key-reveal of partner thread. Note that we use SidI_2 here.
A session key reveal can only happen after SidI_2 is logged anyways.
*/
& (All #i3 #i4 tpartner kpartner.
SidI_2( tpartner,I,R,hkI,hkR,kpartner ) @i3
& SesskRev( tpartner ) @ i4 ==> F)
/* If there is no partner thread, then there is no longterm-key-reveal for
the actor or intended partner.
(We model wpfs, for pfs, add i1 < i3 to conclusion)
*/
& (All #i3. LtkRev( I ) @ i3 ==>
(Ex #i4 tpartner.
/* (i1 < i3) | */
SidI_1( tpartner,I,R,hkI ) @i4))
& (All #i3. LtkRev( R ) @ i3 ==>
(Ex #i4 tpartner.
/* (i1 < i3) | */
SidI_1( tpartner,I,R,hkI ) @i4))
)"
end