Witness-functions versus interpretation-functions for secrecy in cryptographic protocols: What to choose?

Abstract

Abstract-Proving that a cryptographic protocol is correct for secrecy is a hard task. One of the strongest strategies to reach this goal is to show that it is increasing, which means that the security level of every single atomic message exchanged in the protocol, safely evaluated, never deceases. Recently, two families of functions have been proposed to measure the security level of atomic messages. The first one is the family of interpretationfunctions. The second is the family of witness-functions. In this paper, we show that the witness-functions are more efficient than interpretation-functions. We give a detailed analysis of an ad-hoc protocol on which the witness-functions succeed in proving its correctness for secrecy while the interpretation-functions fail to do so.

On the Security of Cryptographic Protocols Using the Little Theorem of Witness Functions

“…Witness functions, using the general theorem or the little one, are beginning to gain ground and are proven to be a powerful means of detecting security breaches or designing correct protocols. They have outperformed other analytical tools and methods such as interpretation functions [22], [23] in terms of efficiency and accuracy [12]. The fact that these functions allow a static analysis saves a lot of effort and time compared to other dynamic methods based on Model-Checking [24] or on program logics [25], for example.…”

FPGA Implementation of SIMON-128 Cryptographic Algorithm Using Artix-7

“…Also, encrypted messages are much larger than those encrypted using symmetric keys. Cryptographic protocols, using symmetric or asymmetric cryptographic algorithms, [3], [4], [5], [6] are rules of exchange between network points whose role is precisely to secure communications. They are used for example in e-commerce, when a customer enters his credit card number to pay for a purchase.…”