A Formal Analysis of the Web Services Atomic Transaction Protocol with UPPAAL

Ravn, Anders P.; Srba, Jǐŕı; Vighio, Saleem

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-16558-0_47

Cited by 23 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, we cannot expect that all parties of the protocol agree on the outcome, as it was the case for WS-AT protocols [7,15]. This means that in the tables for outbound events, messages that lead to invalid states are never sent (and hence omitted in the Uppaal model) and for inbound events the possibility to enter an invalid state is a protocol violation.…”

Section: Analysis Of Bawccmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The WS-AT specification provides protocols used for simple short-lived activities, whereas WS-BA provides protocols used for long-lived business activities. The WS-AT protocol has recently been in focus in the formal methods community and its correctness has been verified using both the TLC model checker [7] where the protocol was formalized in the TLA + [8] language as well as using the Uppaal tool and networks of communicating timed automata [15]. In [15], we discussed the key aspects of the two approaches, including the characteristics of the specification languages, the performances of the tools, and the robustness of the specifications with respect to extensions.…”

Section: And Ws-businessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, in contrast to [7,15], we do not limit our analyses to only one type of asynchronous communication policy where messages can be reordered, lost and duplicated, but study different communication mechanisms (see e.g. [1]).…”

Section: And Ws-businessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As argued in [7], this kind of policy is conveniently implemented as a pool of messages mathematically represented by a set. Adding more messages of the same sort to a set has no additional effect and as our correctness property is a safety property, lossiness is implicitly included by the fact that protocol participants are not in any way forced to read messages contained in the pool (see [7,15] for further discussion on this issue). In the rest of the paper we call this kind of communication implementation SET.…”

Section: Communication Policiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Modelling and Verification of Web Services Business Activity Protocol

Ravn

Srba

Vighio

2011

Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. WS-Business Activity specification defines two coordination protocols in order to ensure a consistent agreement on the outcome of long-running distributed applications. We use the model checker Uppaal to analyse the Business Agreement with Coordination Completion protocol type. Our analyses show that the protocol, as described in the standard specification, violates correct operation by reaching invalid states for all underlying communication media except for the perfect FIFO. Based on this result, we propose changes to the protocol. A further investigation of the modified protocol suggests that messages should be received in the same order as they are sent so that a correct protocol behaviour is preserved. Another important property of communication protocols is that all parties always reach their final states. Based on the verification with different communication models, we prove that our enhanced protocol satisfies this property for asynchronous, unreliable, order-preserving communication whereas the original protocol does not.

show abstract

Section: Analysis Of Bawccmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: And Ws-businessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: And Ws-businessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Communication Policiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Modelling and Verification of Web Services Business Activity Protocol

Ravn

Srba

Vighio

2011

Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Uppaal [3] is a leading model checker for real-time systems, allowing one to verify automatically whether a system meets its timing requirements. Uppaal and its extensions have been applied to a large number of domains, ranging from communication protocols [28], over planning [4] to systems biology [31]. As such, Uppaal is a popular back-end for various other real-time analysis tools, such as ANIMO [31], sdf2ta [13] and STATE [19].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Efficiently Build a Front-End Tool for UPPAAL: A Model-Driven Approach

Schivo

Yildiz

Ruijters

et al. 2017

Dependable Software Engineering. Theories, Tools, and Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We propose a model-driven engineering approach that facilitates the production of tool chains that use the popular model checker Uppaal as a back-end analysis tool. In this approach, we introduce a metamodel for Uppaal's input model, containing both timed-automata concepts and syntax-related elements for C-like expressions. We also introduce a metamodel for Uppaal's query language to specify temporal properties; as well as a metamodel for traces to interpret Uppaal's counterexamples and witnesses. The approach provides a systematic way to build software bridging tools (i.e., tools that translate from a domainspecific language to Uppaal's input language) such that these tools become easier to debug, extend, reuse and maintain. We demonstrate our approach on five different domains: cyber-physical systems, hardwaresoftware co-design, cyber-security, reliability engineering and software timing analysis. IntroductionUppaal [3] is a leading model checker for real-time systems, allowing one to verify automatically whether a system meets its timing requirements. Uppaal and its extensions have been applied to a large number of domains, ranging from communication protocols [28], over planning [4] to systems biology [31]. As such, Uppaal is a popular back-end for various other real-time analysis tools, such as ANIMO [31], sdf2ta [13] and STATE [19]. Typically such tools take their inputs in a domain-specific language (DSL) and translate these inputs into timed automata, which are then fed into Uppaal to perform the analysis. In this way, domain experts can write their models in a DSL that they are familiar with, while still using Uppaal's powerful analysis algorithms behind the scenes.A disadvantage of this approach is, however, that the tools that translate from a DSL to Uppaal's input language, i.e., software bridging tools, are often implemented ad hoc, and hence difficult to debug, reuse, extend and maintain.

show abstract

Modeling and verifying NLSR protocol of NDN for CPS using UPPAAL

Yuan

Zhu

Yin

2021

J Software Evolu Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Named Data Networking (NDN) is a new promising architecture of informationcentric networking, which supports multicast of data and adopts the publish/ subscribe model in the network. The features of NDN, including name-based data and in-network caching, make it a promising Internet architecture for cyber-physical systems (CPSs). Named-Data Link State Routing (NLSR) protocol is the routing protocol for NDN, which is designed to disseminate link state advertisements (LSAs) to both build a network topology and distribute all the name prefixes to every node in the network. In this paper, we make the very first attempt to formally model and verify some fundamental properties of the NLSR protocol using model checker UPPAAL. We validate the NLSR protocol modeled into timed automata with simulator in UPPAAL. We verify our model with four fundamental properties (termination, reachability of Sync Interest, reachability of Sync Data, and digest synchronization).The first synchronization problem is found in a scenario with two nodes topology.We give the improved model that owns a valid result in digest synchronization verification. To capture more problems, we make the model to support the simulation of temporary network crash. The second synchronization problem is also exposed in two comparative scenarios. We also propose a mechanism implemented in our model, which has a valid result in digest synchronization verification. We hope that our study and preliminary results would help enhancing the adaptability and robustness of NLSR protocol.

show abstract

A Formal Analysis of the Web Services Atomic Transaction Protocol with UPPAAL

Cited by 23 publications

References 5 publications

Modelling and Verification of Web Services Business Activity Protocol

Modelling and Verification of Web Services Business Activity Protocol

How to Efficiently Build a Front-End Tool for UPPAAL: A Model-Driven Approach

Modeling and verifying NLSR protocol of NDN for CPS using UPPAAL

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About