| dc.description.abstract | As our world becomes more connected, the average person must place more trust in cloud systems for everyday transactions. We rely on banks and credit card services to protect our money, hospitals to conceal and selectively disclose sensitive health information, and government agencies to protect our identity and uphold national security interests. However, establishing trust in remote systems is not a trivial task, especially in the diverse, distributed ecosystem of todays networked computers. Remote Attestation is a mechanism for establishing trust in a remotely running system where an Appraiser requests information from a target that can be used to evaluate its operational state. The target responds with evidence providing configuration information, run-time measurements, and authenticity meta-evidence used by the appraiser to determine if it trusts the target system. For Remote Attestation to be applied broadly, we must have Attestation Protocols that perform operations on a collection of applications, each of which must be measured differently. Verifying that these protocols behave as expected and accomplish their diverse attestation goals is a unique challenge. An important first step is to understand the structural properties and execution patterns they share. In this thesis I present a semantic framework for attestation protocol execution within the Coq verification environment including a protocol representation based on Session Types, a dependently typed model of perfect cryptography, and an operational execution semantics. The expressive power of dependent types constrains the structure of protocols and supports precise claims about their behavior. If we view attestation protocols as programming language expressions, we can borrow from standard language semantics techniques to model their execution. The proof framework ensures desirable properties of protocol execution that hold for all protocols. Within this framework, it is feasible to state and prove specialized properties such as authenticity and secrecy for individual protocols. | |
