Symbolic Verification of Distance Bounding Protocols

7Citations
Citations of this article
5Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

With the proliferation of contactless applications, obtaining reliable information about distance is becoming an important security goal, and specific protocols have been designed for that purpose. These protocols typically measure the round trip time of messages and use this information to infer a distance. Formal methods have proved their usefulness when analysing standard security protocols such as confidentiality or authentication protocols. However, due to their abstract communication model, existing results and tools do not apply to distance bounding protocols. In this paper, we consider a symbolic model suitable to analyse distance bounding protocols, and we propose a new procedure for analysing (a bounded number of sessions of) protocols in this model. The procedure has been integrated in the Akiss tool and tested on various distance bounding and payment protocols (e.g. MasterCard, NXP).

References Powered by Scopus

On the Security of Public Key Protocols

4316Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Distance-bounding protocols

520Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The TAMARIN prover for the symbolic analysis of security protocols

499Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

The EMV standard: Break, fix, verify

39Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Formally verifying security protocols built on watermarking and jamming

6Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Protocol analysis with time

3Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Debant, A., & Delaune, S. (2019). Symbolic Verification of Distance Bounding Protocols. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (Vol. 11426 LNCS, pp. 149–174). Springer Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17138-4_7

Readers over time

‘19‘20‘21‘2400.511.52

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 2

67%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

33%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Computer Science 3

75%

Nursing and Health Professions 1

25%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0