Ethereum is a framework for cryptocurrencies which uses blockchain technology to provide an open global computing platform, called the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM). EVM executes bytecode on a simple stack machine. Programmers do not usually write EVM code; instead, they can program in a JavaScript-like language, called Solidity, that compiles to bytecode. Since the main purpose of EVM is to execute smart contracts that manage and transfer digital assets (called Ether), security is of paramount importance. However, writing secure smart contracts can be extremely difficult: due to the openness of Ethereum, both programs and pseudonymous users can call into the public methods of other programs, leading to potentially dangerous compositions of trusted and untrusted code. This risk was recently illustrated by an attack on TheDAO contract that exploited subtle details of the EVM semantics to transfer roughly $50M worth of Ether into the control of an attacker. In this paper, we outline a framework to analyze and verify both the runtime safety and the functional correctness of Ethereum contracts by translation to F , a functional programming language aimed at program verification.

Abstract. We present EasyCrypt, an automated tool for elaborating security proofs of cryptographic systems from proof sketches-compact, formal representations of the essence of a proof as a sequence of games and hints. Proof sketches are checked automatically using off-the-shelf SMT solvers and automated theorem provers, and then compiled into verifiable proofs in the CertiCrypt framework. The tool supports most common reasoning patterns and is significantly easier to use than its predecessors. We argue that EasyCrypt is a plausible candidate for adoption by working cryptographers and illustrate its application to security proofs of the Cramer-Shoup and Hashed ElGamal cryptosystems.

Differential privacy is a notion of confidentiality that protects the privacy of individuals while allowing useful computations on their private data. Deriving differential privacy guarantees for real programs is a difficult and error-prone task that calls for principled approaches and tool support. Approaches based on linear types and static analysis have recently emerged; however, an increasing number of programs achieve privacy using techniques that cannot be analyzed by these approaches. Examples include programs that aim for weaker, approximate differential privacy guarantees, programs that use the Exponential mechanism, and randomized programs that achieve differential privacy without using any standard mechanism. Providing support for reasoning about the privacy of such programs has been an open problem.We report on CertiPriv, a machine-checked framework for reasoning about differential privacy built on top of the Coq proof assistant. The central component of CertiPriv is a quantitative extension of a probabilistic relational Hoare logic that enables one to derive differential privacy guarantees for programs from first principles. We demonstrate the expressiveness of CertiPriv using a number of examples whose formal analysis is out of the reach of previous techniques. In particular, we provide the first machine-checked proofs of correctness of the Laplacian and Exponential mechanisms and of the privacy of randomized and streaming algorithms from the recent literature.

As cryptographic proofs have become essentially unverifiable, cryptographers have argued in favor of developing techniques that help tame the complexity of their proofs. Game-based techniques provide a popular approach in which proofs are structured as sequences of games, and in which proof steps establish the validity of transitions between successive games. Code-based techniques form an instance of this approach that takes a code-centric view of games, and that relies on programming language theory to justify proof steps. While code-based techniques contribute to formalize the security statements precisely and to carry out proofs systematically , typical proofs are so long and involved that formal verification is necessary to achieve a high degree of confidence. We present CertiCrypt, a framework that enables the machine-checked construction and verification of code-based proofs. CertiCrypt is built upon the general-purpose proof assistant Coq, and draws on many areas, including probability, complexity, algebra, and semantics of programming languages. CertiCrypt provides certified tools to reason about the equivalence of probabilistic programs, including a relational Hoare logic, a theory of observational equivalence, verified program transformations, and game-based techniques such as reasoning about failure events. The usefulness of CertiCrypt is demonstrated through classical examples, including a proof of semantic security of OAEP (with a bound that improves upon [9]), and a proof of existential unforgeability of FDH signatures. Our work provides a first yet significant step towards Halevi's ambitious programme [21] of providing tool support for cryptographic proofs.

We present a new, completely redesigned, version of F ⋆ , a language that works both as a proof assistant as well as a general-purpose, verification-oriented, effectful programming language. In support of these complementary roles, F ⋆ is a dependently typed, higher-order, call-by-value language with primitive effects including state, exceptions, divergence and IO. Although primitive, programmers choose the granularity at which to specify effects by equipping each effect with a monadic, predicate transformer semantics. F ⋆ uses this to efficiently compute weakest preconditions and discharges the resulting proof obligations using a combination of SMT solving and manual proofs. Isolated from the effects, the core of F ⋆ is a language of pure functions used to write specifications and proof terms-its consistency is maintained by a semantic termination check based on a well-founded order. We evaluate our design on more than 55,000 lines of F ⋆ we have authored in the last year, focusing on three main case studies. Showcasing its use as a general-purpose programming language, F ⋆ is programmed (but not verified) in F ⋆ , and bootstraps in both OCaml and F#. Our experience confirms F ⋆ 's pay-as-you-go cost model: writing idiomatic ML-like code with no finer specifications imposes no user burden. As a verification-oriented language, our most significant evaluation of F ⋆ is in verifying several key modules in an implementation of the TLS-1.2 protocol standard. For the modules we considered, we are able to prove more properties, with fewer annotations using F ⋆ than in a prior verified implementation of TLS-1.2. Finally, as a proof assistant, we discuss our use of F ⋆ in mechanizing the metatheory of a range of lambda calculi, starting from the simply typed lambda calculus to System F ω and even µF ⋆ , a sizeable fragment of F ⋆ itself-these proofs make essential use of F ⋆ 's flexible combination of SMT automation and constructive proofs, enabling a tactic-free style of programming and proving at a relatively large scale. Categories and Subject Descriptors D.3.1 [Programming Languages]: Formal Definitions and Theory-Semantics; F.3.1 [Logics and Meanings of Programs]: Specifying and Verifying and Reasoning about Programs-Mechanical verification Keywords verification; proof assistants; effectful programming 1 Henceforth, we refer to the new language presented in this paper as "F ⋆ " while referring to the old, defunct version as "old-F ⋆ ".