Reasoning about minimal anonymity in security protocols

Iplea, Ferucio Laureniu; Vamanu, Loredana; VíRlan, Cosmin

doi:10.1016/j.future.2012.02.001

Cited by 7 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… at ARES 2011 conference, the main interest was related to the complementarity between the behavioral equivalence, defined in the referenced paper and the observational equivalence presented in Refs. and . This article answers the questions that were addressed there and to sum up the core of the epistemic logic used in Ref.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Compiling an Epistemic Logic for Multiagent Systems

Goriac

2013

Int. J. Intell. Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Because of the special interest manifested in ARES 2011 conference related to the distinction between observational equivalence and behavioral equivalence, we decided to pay special attention to this topic. This paper primarily focuses on defining knowledge and analyzing its properties in a multiagent system by developing the approach suggested by Halpern and O'Neill (ACM Trans Inf Syst Secur 2008;12(1); J Comput Secur 2005;13(3):483–512). We carefully elaborate on the internal state of an agent and explain how it is able to influence its actions. After that, two types of state equivalence are considered introspective and extrospective for which we define general and bounded variants. The bounded variants are particularly suited to modeling real‐world security protocols. Beside knowledge we introduce beliefs and for both notions we provide two types of definitions, some very abstract (that we call conceptual) and some a bit more intuitive (called operational). In the last section, we use of all the concepts so far defined to introduce reality strategies to highlight the adaptability of an agent to its environment. We conclude that the usefulness of the operationally defined knowledge is a bit counterintuitive.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Compiling an Epistemic Logic for Multiagent Systems

Goriac

2013

Int. J. Intell. Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[6] and [11] focus on anonymity in security protocols and multi-agent systems, respectively, by using an epistemic logic framework. These two papers have greatly influenced the research on anonymity based on an epistemic logic formalism [12], [15], [20], [24], [25], [26]. The roots of our paper can be traced back to these two papers too.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…O VER the last two decades there has been a growing interest in methods for anonymous communication and in developing techniques for reasoning about information hiding properties in security protocols [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. This is mainly due to the applications of the anonymous communication to various fields such as e-voting, e-commerce, e-mail, e-cash and so on.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Contribution: In two earlier papers [24], [26], we have investigated the minimal anonymity in security protocols. In this paper we do the same for group anonymity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this paper we do the same for group anonymity. Using the framework developed in [24], [26], we define group anonymity for security protocols. As we are using six types of send actions and six types of receive actions, our approach covers a large spectrum of group anonymity concepts met in the literature on information hiding properties.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Group Anonymity in Security Protocols

Ţiplea

Varlan

2018

Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Group anonymity, as an instance of information hiding, means that an agent is not identifiable within a group of agents with respect to an observer. In this paper we define group anonymity in security protocols by taking into account two types of observers: honest agents, as local observers of the protocol execution, and intruders (active or passive), as global observers of the protocol execution. It is shown that an action may be group anonymous in a protocol under a passive intruder but not in the same protocol under an active intruder, and vice versa. In case of basic-term actions, group anonymity in a protocol under an active intruder implies group anonymity in the same protocol under a passive intruder. A broad spectrum of relationships between group anonymity for various types of actions is developed, as well as relationships between group anonymity, minimal anonymity, and role interchangeability. Finally, the decidability and complexity status of the decision problems induced by these concepts is completely discussed. Thus, it is shown that group anonymity and role interchangeability are undecidable in unrestricted protocols. Group anonymity is complete for NEXPTIME when it is restricted to basic-term actions and bounded security protocols, and it is complete for NP when it is restricted to basic-term actions and 1-session bounded security protocols.

show abstract

On compositional reasoning about anonymity and privacy in epistemic logic

Tsukada

Sakurada

Mano

et al. 2016

Ann Math Artif Intell

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we present an epistemic logic approach to the compositionality of several privacy-related informationhiding/disclosure properties. The properties considered here are anonymity, privacy, onymity, and identity. Our initial observation reveals that anonymity and privacy are not necessarily sequentially compositional; this means that even though a system comprising several sequential phases satisfies a certain unlinkability property in each phase, the entire system does not always enjoy a desired unlinkability property. We show that the compositionality can be guaranteed provided that the phases of the system satisfy what we call the independence assumptions. More specifically, we develop a series of theoretical case studies of what assumptions are sufficient to guarantee the sequential compositionality of various degrees of anonymity, privacy, onymity, and/or identity properties. Similar results for parallel composition are also discussed.We briefly review epistemic logic for multiagent systems. Notions and terminologies are borrowed from [9,12].A multiagent system consists of n agents with their local states and develops over time. We assume that an agent's local state encapsulates all the information to which the agent has access. Let I = {i 1, . . . , in} be the set of n agents. A global state is defined as the tuple (s i 1 , . . . , si n ) with all local states from i 1 to in. A run is a function from time, ranging over the natural numbers, to global states. A point is a pair

show abstract

Reasoning about minimal anonymity in security protocols

Cited by 7 publications

References 13 publications

Compiling an Epistemic Logic for Multiagent Systems

Compiling an Epistemic Logic for Multiagent Systems

Group Anonymity in Security Protocols

On compositional reasoning about anonymity and privacy in epistemic logic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About