M. Boreale and R. De Nicola. Testing equivalences for mobile processes. Information and Computation, 120:279303, 1995.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....seems at least as appropriate a tool as bisimulation. First, the notion of observational equivalence is simpler: indeed testing bisimulation amounts to verifying the behaviours of processes at intermediate steps of computation rather than just the input output relation. Then, as pointed out in [6], there are various notions of bisimulation (see for example [17] 18] 22] and there is no consensus on which is the proper one. On the other side, the calculus of multiplicities of [8] does not seem of independent interest, while syatems similar to the concurrent calculus have been ....

M. Boreale, R. De Nicola, \Testing Equivalence for Mobile Processes", Inform. Comp. 120, 1995, 279-303.

....that two processes have the same behaviour if no distinction can be detected by an external process interacting with each of them. The concrete version of a protocol is secure if its behaviour cannot be distinguished from the one of the abstract version. This approach leads to testing equivalence [10, 7] and we shall follow it hereafter. Our notion directly derives from the Non Interference notion called NDC that has been applied to protocol analysis in [17, 16, 15] Note also that the idea of comparing cryptographic protocol with secure by construction specifications is also similar to the one ....

....more concrete version, possibly involving standard cryptographic operations (e.g. encryptions, nonces) In other words, we compare their behaviour. The concrete version is secure, whenever it presents the same behaviour of the abstract version. We adopt here the notion of testing equivalence [10, 7], where the behaviour of processes is observed by an external process, called tester. Testers are able to observe all the actions of systems, apart from the internal ones. As a matter of fact, here we push a bit further Abadi and Gordon s [1] idea of considering correct a protocol if the ....

M. Boreale and R. De Nicola. Testing equivalence for mobile processes. Information and Computation, 120(2):279--303, August 1995.

....do require fairness, including the one in [42] but the implementations of concurrent programming languages (for instance Java) usually do not guarantee a fair scheduling policy. In order to prove the correctness of the encoding we develop an extension of the notion of testing semantics ([34, 3]) for the probabilistic asynchronous # calculus. This semantics is sensitive to divergencies and deadlocks, hence it is reasonable in the sense of [36] We will show that our encoding is correct in the sense that translated processes preserve, under any proper adversary, and with probability 1, ....

..... # . to approximate a priority choice. Of course, the smaller # is, the tighter the approximation is. 6. 3 Correctness of the encoding In order to assess the correctness of the translation of # into # , we consider a probabilistic extension of the notion of testing semantics proposed in [34, 3]. This extension has the advantage of being probabilistically reasonable , i.e. sensitive to deadlocks and livelocks with non null probability. Furthermore, in testing semantics all communications are internalized (except the one used by the observer to declare success) and this spares us from ....

Michele Boreale and Rocco De Nicola. Testing equivalence for mobile processes. Information and Computation, 120(2):279--303, 1995.

....The original calculus paper [10] only gave an axiomatisation for the late version of strong ground bisimulation. Subsequently, e orts have been made to formulate complete proof systems for other equivalences for this calculus: 12, 2, 7] for both early and late strong bisimulation congruences, [4, 1] for testing equivalence, and [13] for (strong) open bisimulation. It has been widely conjectured that axiomatisation for weak bisimulations can be obtained by adding Milner s laws to proof systems for strong equivalences [10, 12, 2] In this paper we shall verify this conjecture by presenting ....

....term containing parallel operator can be equated to a nite term without it, hence the normal form lemma still holds, as does the completeness theorem. 5.2 Mismatch Mismatch, i.e. testing inequality between names, is not included in the original calculus. Some later publications, notably [4] [1], 12] and [2] extended the calculus with mismatch in order to give axiomatisation for testing or bisimulation equivalences. To include mismatch into the language we rst extend the operational semantics by including the following two rules: mismatch and Mismatch in Figure 1 and Figure 2, ....

Michele Boreale and Rocco De Nicola (1995), Testing equivalences for mobile processes. Information and Computation, 120, 279-303.

....in providing sound and complete proof systems for the calculus. Various notions of equivalences have been axiomatised: late and early strong bisimulation congruence [PS93, BD94, Lin94] open bisimulation [San93] late and early weak bisimulation equivalences [Lin95] and testing equivalences [Hen91, BD92]; Di erent styles of proof systems have been used: equational axiomatisation [PS93, San93] and symbolic inference systems [BD94, Lin94, Lin95] All these proof systems are only for recursion free calculus in which processes can perform only a nite number of actions. The same is also true for ....

....to the setting of calculus. Syntactical simplicity has been achieved by introducing abstraction to form recursive expressions and application to realise parameter passing. The version of the calculus we work with in this paper includes the mismatch construction. Mismatch has been used in [Hen91, BD92, PS93, BD94] for the purpose of complete axiomatisation for testing and bisimulation equivalences. In [Lin94, Lin95] we managed to exclude mismatch from the calculus by using it only in the meta language: in any statement C T = U only the condition C may contain mismatch. We failed to keep such separation ....

M. Boreale and R. DeNicola. Testing equivalence for mobile processes. In CONCUR'92, number 630 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 2 - 16. Springer{Verlag, 1992.

....open bisimulation being strictly finer than late bisimulation which in turn is strictly finer than early bisimulation. The late early distinction has been studied for the much coarser testing equivalence of Hennessy and De Nicola and it has been shown by Ing61fsd6tir [5] and Boreale and De Nicola [1] that the late and early testing equivalences coincide, both for a process calculus with simple data values and conditional expression and for the 7r calculus. In this paper we consider Plain LAL, a mobile process calculus which differs from the 7r calculus in the sense that the communication of ....

Michele Boreale and Rocco De Nicola. Testing equivalences for mobile pro- cesses. In W.R. Cleaveland, editor, CONCUR '92, number 630 in Springer LNCS, pages 2 16. Springer-Verlag, 1992.

....within the calculus, with open bisimulation being strictly finer than late bisimulation which in turn is strictly finer than early bisimulation. The late early distinction has been studied for the much coarser testing equivalence of Hennessy and De Nicola and it has been shown by [Ing94] and [BN92] that the late and early testing equivalences coincide, both for a process calculus with simple data values and conditional expression and for the calculus. In this paper we consider Plain LAL, a mobile process calculus which differs from the calculus in the sense that the communication of data ....

Michele Boreale and Rocco De Nicola. Testing equivalences for mobile processes. In W.R. Cleaveland, editor, CONCUR '92, number 630 in Springer LNCS, pages 2--16. Springer-Verlag, 1992.

No context found.

M. Boreale, R. De Nicola. Testing equivalence for mobile processes. Information and Computation, 120:279-303, Academic Press, 1995.

No context found.

M. Boreale, R. De Nicola. Testing equivalence for mobile processes. Information and Computation, 120:279-303, Academic Press, 1995.

....For example, let P(d) be a process in which a secret datum d is exchanged, properly encrypted, along a public channel. Away of asserting that P(d) keeps d secret is requiring that P(d) be equivalent to P(d # ) for every other d # . An appropriate notion of equivalence is here may testing [15, 9, 3]. Its intuition is precisely that no external observer (which in the present setting can be read as attacker ) can notice any difference when, e.g. running in parallel with P(d # ) or P(d) Formally, we define an observer as a process that is possibly capable of a distinct success action w; ....

....quantification over contexts (attackers) that makes equivalence checking very hard. It is then important to devise proof techniques that avoid such quantification. Results in this direction are well known for traditional process calculi. For example, both in CCS [15] and in the p calculus [9], may testing is easily proven to coincide with trace equivalence, which requires that two equivalent processes generate the same sequences of actions (I O events) Similarly, barbed equivalence is proved to coincide with (early) bisimulation [25] The latter requires that each action of one ....

M. Boreale, R. De Nicola. Testing Equivalence for Mobile Processes. Information and Computation, 120: 279-303, 1995.

....and secrecy rigorous. For instance, according to [2] a way of asserting that a protocol, represented by a process term P (d) keeps datum d secret is requiring that P (d) be equivalent to P (d 0 ) for every other d 0 . Observational equivalences based on context closure, like maytesting [6, 3, 2] and barbed equivalence [11] appear to be appropriate in this setting. The intuition behind them is precisely that no external context (which in the present setting can be read as attacker ) may notice any di erence when running in parallel with P (d 0 ) or P (d) The de nitions of these ....

M. Boreale, R. De Nicola. Testing equivalence for mobile processes. Information and Computation, 120:279-303, Academic Press, 1995.

....the set of all processes. In general, we will work with PAL terms and use E and F to range over them. Moreover, we often shall write a instead of a:nil, and use j to denote syntactical identity and Sigma Gammair to denote the set of all the operators except for in(t) and read(t) Like in [4], because of the interplay between process binders and value variable binders, we have to put a restriction on PAL terms. The restriction ensures that no free value variable is bound when unfolding rec X:E into E[rec X:E=X] Otherwise, the two terms could have different semantics. For an ....

M. Boreale, R. De Nicola. Testing Equivalence for Mobile Processes. Information and Computation, 120(2):279-303, 1995.

No context found.

M. Boreale and R. De Nicola. Testing equivalences for mobile processes. Information and Computation, 120:279303, 1995.

No context found.

M. Boreale and R. De Nicola. Testing equivalence for mobile processes. Information and Computation, 120(2):279--303, August 1995. 107

No context found.

M. Boreale and R. De Nicola. Testing equivalence for mobile processes. Information and Computation, 120(2):279--303, August 1995.

No context found.

M. Boreale and R. De Nicola. Testing equivalences for mobile processes. Journal of Information and Computation, 120:279--303, 1995. 34

No context found.

M. Boreale, R. De Nicola, \Testing Equivalence for Mobile Processes", Inform. Comp. 120, 1995, 279-303.

No context found.

M. Boreale and R. De Nicola. Testing equivalences for mobile processes. Journal of Information and Computation, 120:279--303, 1995.

No context found.

M. Boreale and R. De Nicola. Testing equivalence for mobile processes. Information and Computation, 120(2):279--303, August 1995.

No context found.

Michele Boreale and Rocco De Nicola. Testing equivalence for mobile processes. Information and Computation, 120(2):279--303, 1995.

No context found.

Michele Boreale and Rocco De Nicola. Testing equivalence for mobile processes. Information and Computation, 120(2):279--303, August 1995.

No context found.

Michele Boreale and Rocco De Nicola. Testing equivalence for mobile processes. Information and Computation, 120(2):279--303, 1995.

No context found.

Michele Boreale and Rocco De Nicola. Testing equivalence for mobile processes. Information and Computation, 120(2):279--303, 1995.

No context found.

M. Boreale and R. De Nicola. Testing equivalence for mobile processes. Information and Computation, 120:279--303, 1995.

No context found.

Michele Boreale and Rocco De Nicola. Testing equivalence for mobile processes. Information and Computation, 120(2):279--303, 1995.

First 50 documents  Next 50

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC