tamarin-prover-0.8.4.0: data/examples/ake/dh/NAXOS_eCK.spthy
theory NAXOS_eCK
begin
builtins: diffie-hellman
section{* NAXOS *}
/*
* Protocol: NAXOS
* Modeler: Cas Cremers, Benedikt Schmidt
* Date: January 2012/April 2012/October 2012
* Source: "Stronger Security of Authenticated Key Exchange"
* LaMacchia, Lauter, Mityagin, 2007
* Property: eCK security
*
* Status: Working
*/
functions: h1/1
functions: h2/1
/* Protocol rules */
/* In the description in the paper, we omitted the sorts.
* In this description they are made explicit.
* '$A' is equivalent to 'A:pub'
* '~x' is equivalent to 'x:fresh'
*/
/* Generate long-term keypair */
rule generate_ltk:
let pkA = 'g'^~ea
in
[ Fr(~ea) ]
--[ RegKey($A) ]->
[ !Ltk( $A, ~ea ), !Pk( $A, pkA ), Out( pkA ) ]
/* Initiator */
rule Init_1:
let X = 'g'^h1(<~ex, ~ea >)
in
[ Fr( ~ex ), !Ltk( $A, ~ea ) ]
-->
[ Init_1( ~ex, $A, $B, ~ea )
, !Ephk(~ex, ~ex)
, Out( X ) ]
rule Init_2:
let KB = 'g'^~eb
X = 'g'^h1(<~ex, ~ea >)
exp = h1(< ~ex, ~ea >)
key = h2(< Y^~ea, KB^exp, Y^exp, $A, $B >)
in
[ Init_1( ~ex, $A, $B, ~ea)
, !Pk( $B, KB ), In( Y ) ]
--[ Accept( ~ex, key)
, Sid( ~ex, < $A, $B, X, Y, 'Init' >)
]->
[ !Sessk( ~ex, key) ]
/* Responder */
rule Resp_1:
let KA = 'g'^~lkI
exp = h1(< ~ey, ~eb >)
Y = 'g'^exp
key = h2(< KA^exp, X^~eb, X^exp, $A, $B >)
in
[ Fr( ~ey ), !Ltk($B, ~eb), !Pk($A, KA), In( X ) ]
--[ Accept( ~ey, key )
, Sid( ~ey, < $B, $A, Y, X, 'Resp' > )
]->
[ Out( Y ),
!Ephk(~ey, ~ey),
!Sessk( ~ey, key) ]
/* Key Reveals for the eCK model */
rule Sessk_reveal:
[ !Sessk(~s, k) ] --[ RevealSessk(~s) ]-> [ Out(k) ]
rule Ltk_reveal:
[ !Ltk($A, ea) ] --[ RevealLtk($A) ]-> [ Out(ea) ]
rule Ephk_reveal:
[ !Ephk(~s, ~ek) ] --[ RevealEphk(~s) ]-> [ Out(~ek) ]
/* Security properties */
/*
lemma eCK_same_key:
" // If every agent registered at most one public key
(All A #i #j. RegKey(A)@i & RegKey(A)@j ==> (#i = #j))
==> // then matching sessions accept the same key
(not (Ex #i1 #i2 #i3 #i4 s ss k kk A B minfo .
Accept(s, A, B, k ) @ i1
& Accept(ss, B, A, kk) @ i2
& Sid(s, minfo) @ i3
& Match(ss, minfo) @i4
& not( k = kk )
) )"
*/
lemma eCK_key_secrecy:
/*
* The property specification is a (logically equivalent) simplified
* version of the one in the original eCK (ProvSec) paper:
*
* If there exists a test session whose key k is known to the
* Adversary with some session-id, then...
*/
"(All #i1 #i2 #i3 test A B k sent recvd role.
Accept(test, k) @ i1 & K( k ) @ i2 & Sid(test, < A, B, sent, recvd, role> ) @ i3
==> (
/* ... the test session must be "not clean".
* test is not clean if one of the following has happened:
*/
/* 1. The adversary has revealed the session key of the test session. */
(Ex #i3. RevealSessk( test ) @ i3 )
/* 2. The adversary has revealed both the longterm key of A and the
ephemeral key of the test session */
| (Ex #i5 #i6. RevealLtk ( A ) @ i5 & RevealEphk ( test ) @ i6 )
/* 3. There is a matching session and */
| (Ex matchingSession #i3 matchingRole.
( Sid ( matchingSession, < B, A, recvd, sent, matchingRole > ) @ i3
& not ( matchingRole = role ) )
& (
/* (a) the adversary has revealed the session key of the matching session, or */
(Ex #i5. RevealSessk( matchingSession ) @ i5 )
/* (b) the adversary has revealed the longterm key of B and the ephemeral
key of the matching session. */
| (Ex #i5 #i6. RevealLtk ( B ) @ i5 & RevealEphk ( matchingSession ) @ i6 )
)
)
/* 4. There is no matching session and */
| ( ( not(Ex matchingSession #i3 matchingRole.
( Sid ( matchingSession, < B, A, recvd, sent, matchingRole > ) @ i3
& not ( matchingRole = role ) )))
/* the adversary has revealed the longterm key of B. */
& ( (Ex #i5. RevealLtk (B) @ i5 )
)
)
)
)"
end