What Is Agreement Protocol
The cryptographic primitives used by the protocol are threshold random access coin throwing schemes and non-interactive threshold signature schemes, which we assume are secure for this case study. Specifically, we assume that threshold random access coin casting schemes are robust and unpredictable, and that threshold signature schemes are robust and non-falsifiable (see [CKS00] for details). One of the fundamental problems of fault-tolerant distributed computing is the problem of the Byzantine agreement. The Byzantine agreement requires a number of parties to agree on value in a distributed environment, even if some of the parties are corrupt. If you have a secure way to verify a shared key on a public channel, you can perform a Diffie-Hellman key exchange to derive a shared key in the short term and then authenticate that the keys match. One option is to use a reading authenticated by the key language, as in PGPfone. However, voice authentication presupposes that it is not possible for a man in the middle to falsify the voice from one participant to another in real time, which can be an undesirable hypothesis. Such protocols can be designed to work even with a small public value such as a password. Variants on this topic have been suggested for Bluetooth pairing protocols.
We master the above challenges as follows. We model the entire protocol in Cadence SMV after replacing random results with non-deterministic decisions. The technical difficulties mentioned with the ordset data type have been largely solved by finding a variant of the model that retains the key property on which the accuracy argument is based. The proof of the probabilistic property is then reduced to a simple, high-level inductive argument based on a set of lemmas and cryptographic assumptions. We start from the cryptographic properties and automate the proof of each lemma. With proofs of validity and compliance, which are simpler and more fully automated, we get a partially mechanized argument for the accuracy of the ABBA protocol for all n and for all towers. It should be emphasized that we cannot automate the last inductive argument because it is probabilistic: SMV Cadence cannot process probabilities, while PRISM can only process finite configurations and does not support data reduction. Instead, we further validate the probabilistic analysis as follows. Observing that the problem of a fixed n can be reduced to model verification of a finite state abstraction of the protocol, we manually construct an abstraction and model it with PRISM, validating the probabilities for a maximum of n = 20 parts. In addition, we verify (for a finite configuration) the accuracy of abstraction with the CSP process algebra [Ros97] and the method-based FDR tool in [KNS01a]; This depends on the ability to encode probabilities in action names and therefore excludes the use of SMV Cadence. The first publicly known public key memorandum of understanding to meet the above criteria was the Diffie-Hellman key exchange, in which two parties jointly expose a generator with random numbers in such a way that a spy cannot quantify what is the resulting value used to create a shared key. The exponential exchange of keys in itself does not require any prior agreement or subsequent authentication between participants.
It has therefore been described as an anonymous key memorandum of understanding. A variety of cryptographic authentication schemes and protocols are designed to provide an authenticated key agreement to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks and related attacks. These methods usually mathematically link the agreed key to other agreed data, such as .B. Password-authenticated key moUs require the separate setting of a password (which may be smaller than a key) in a way that is both private and ensures integrity. These are designed to resist man-in-the-middle and other active attacks on the password and established keys. For example, DH-EKE, SPEKE, and SRP are password-authenticated variants of Diffie-Hellman. In cryptography, a key memorandum of understanding is a protocol in which two or more parties can agree on a key in a way that influences the outcome. If done correctly, it prevents undesirable third parties from imposing an important choice on the parties. Protocols that are useful in practice do not reveal to any auditor which key has been agreed. A widely used mechanism to defend against such attacks is the use of digitally signed keys, which must be integrity-proof: if Bob`s key is signed by a trusted third party who vouches for her identity, Alice can be very sure that a signed key she receives is not an interception attempt. If Alice and Bob have a public key infrastructure, they can digitally sign an agreed Diffie-Hellman key or exchange Diffie-Hellman public keys. These signed keys, sometimes signed by a certificate authority, are one of the most important mechanisms used to secure web traffic (including HTTPS, SSL, or Transport Layer Security protocols).
Other concrete examples are MQV, YAK and the ISAKMP component of the IPsec protocol suite to secure Internet Protocol communication. However, these systems require precautions to confirm the matching of identity information to public keys by certification authorities for them to function properly. A random protocol uses random assignment, for example, electronic coin casting, and its termination is therefore probabilistic. The requirements for a random moU are: In addition to validity and agreement, the protocol guarantees probabilistic termination within a constant waiting time, which is validated by the following property: We consider the random Byzantine ABA (Asynchronous Binary Byzantine Agreement) protocol of Cachin, Kursawe and Shoup [CKS00], which takes place in a completely asynchronous environment. Allows the maximum number of corrupted parties and uses cryptography and randomization. There are n parties, an adversary who is allowed to corrupt at most t of them (where t < n/3), and a trustworthy trader. Parties can go through an unlimited number of rounds: in each round, they try to reach an agreement by voting on the basis of the votes of the other parties. The goal is to automate the analysis of the ABBA protocol using the methodology presented in our previous article [KNS01a] based on [MQS00].
In [KNS01a], we used Cadence SMV and the PRISM probabilistic model tester to verify aspnes and Herlihy`s simpler randomized memorandum of understanding [AH90], which only tolerates benign stop errors. We achieved this through a combination of mechanical inductive proofs (for all n for non-probabilistic properties) and tests (for finite configurations for probabilistic properties), as well as high-level manual detection. However, the ABBA protocol presented us with a number of difficulties that we had not encountered before: many key exchange systems allow one party to generate the key and simply send that key to the other party – the other party has no influence on the key. Using a key memorandum of understanding avoids some of the major distribution issues associated with such systems. To avoid the use of additional out-of-band authentication factors, Davies and Price proposed using the Rivest and Adi Shamir ron lock protocol, which was later attacked and refined. There are a number of solutions to the Byzantine Memorandum of Understanding. Unfortunately, the fundamental impossibility result of [FLP85] shows that there is no deterministic algorithm to reach an agreement in the asynchronous environment, even with benign errors. .