{"title":"并行秘密与量化怀疑","authors":"L. Hélouët, H. Marchand, J. Mullins","doi":"10.1109/ACSD.2018.00011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A system satisfies opacity if its secret behaviors cannot be detected by any user of the system. Opacity of distributed systems was originally set as a boolean predicate before being quantified as measures in a probabilistic setting. This paper considers a different quantitative approach that measures the efforts that a malicious user has to make to detect a secret. This effort is measured as a distance w.r.t a regular profile specifying a normal behavior. This leads to several notions of quantitative opacity. When attackers are passive that is, when they just observe the system, quantitative opacity is brought back to a language inclusion problem, and is PSPACE-complete. When attackers are active, that is, interact with the system in order to detect secret behaviors within a finite depth observation, quantitative opacity turns to be a two-player finite-state quantitative game of partial observation. A winning strategy for an attacker is a sequence of interactions with the system leading to a secret detection without exceeding some profile deviation measure threshold. In this active setting, the complexity of opacity is EXPTIME-complete.","PeriodicalId":242721,"journal":{"name":"2018 18th International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design (ACSD)","volume":"80 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Concurrent Secrets with Quantified Suspicion\",\"authors\":\"L. Hélouët, H. Marchand, J. Mullins\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/ACSD.2018.00011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A system satisfies opacity if its secret behaviors cannot be detected by any user of the system. Opacity of distributed systems was originally set as a boolean predicate before being quantified as measures in a probabilistic setting. This paper considers a different quantitative approach that measures the efforts that a malicious user has to make to detect a secret. This effort is measured as a distance w.r.t a regular profile specifying a normal behavior. This leads to several notions of quantitative opacity. When attackers are passive that is, when they just observe the system, quantitative opacity is brought back to a language inclusion problem, and is PSPACE-complete. When attackers are active, that is, interact with the system in order to detect secret behaviors within a finite depth observation, quantitative opacity turns to be a two-player finite-state quantitative game of partial observation. A winning strategy for an attacker is a sequence of interactions with the system leading to a secret detection without exceeding some profile deviation measure threshold. In this active setting, the complexity of opacity is EXPTIME-complete.\",\"PeriodicalId\":242721,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2018 18th International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design (ACSD)\",\"volume\":\"80 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2018 18th International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design (ACSD)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/ACSD.2018.00011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2018 18th International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Design (ACSD)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ACSD.2018.00011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
A system satisfies opacity if its secret behaviors cannot be detected by any user of the system. Opacity of distributed systems was originally set as a boolean predicate before being quantified as measures in a probabilistic setting. This paper considers a different quantitative approach that measures the efforts that a malicious user has to make to detect a secret. This effort is measured as a distance w.r.t a regular profile specifying a normal behavior. This leads to several notions of quantitative opacity. When attackers are passive that is, when they just observe the system, quantitative opacity is brought back to a language inclusion problem, and is PSPACE-complete. When attackers are active, that is, interact with the system in order to detect secret behaviors within a finite depth observation, quantitative opacity turns to be a two-player finite-state quantitative game of partial observation. A winning strategy for an attacker is a sequence of interactions with the system leading to a secret detection without exceeding some profile deviation measure threshold. In this active setting, the complexity of opacity is EXPTIME-complete.