A static analysis of cryptographic processes: the denotational approach

A formal model and analysis of an IoT protocol

“…Setting k > 3 also generates more copies and therefore more duplicates. This can be shown as a result of the safety of the analysis, as was proven in [28,29,30,31]. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that for the case of QoS=1, we never obtain a result where the number of published messages is zero (under either condition of no attacker/attacker).…”

“…Finally, ⊥ D = φ 0 is the empty environment where ∀x ∈ N : φ 0 (x) = {}. We also defined in [27] an abstract interpretation based on D ⊥ , which was shown to be safe with respect to the name-substitution semantics, in similar fashion to previous analyses we defined for different variations of the π-calculus [28,29,30]. Later in Section 5, we apply this abstract interpretation to the model of the MQTT protocol introduced in the next Section 4.…”

Modelling and Analysis of Pki-Based Systems Using Process Calculi

“…In this section, we define a domain-theoretic semantics for the SPIKY language that is based on the model of processes originally defined by Stark [34] for the π-calculus and that was further extended for the case of the spi-calculus in [7] to deal with cryptographic processes. Our new model is based on the following IN IT , (xa, xb, xs, xch, xch ) (νna)xch xa, na .xch(xb , xn b , xsig).…”

“…These elements are defined in Figure 7, where K is the set underlying any (pre)domain. Clearly from the definition of Figure 7, the domain Spiky ⊥ is a to similar treatments in [3,7]). The definition of this multiset utilises the usual multiset operations such as the empty multiset, ∅, the singleton multiset, {||}, and the union of multisets, .…”

“…Therefore, it is necessary to introduce a safe abstraction that limits the size of the semantic domain. This abstraction is a variation of the abstraction used in [3,7].…”