Formal Analysis Sample Clauses

Formal Analysis. Output-Responsiveness, Validity and Consistency
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Formal Analysis. In The AVISPA tool [23], security protocols are speci ed us- ing the High Level Protocol Speci cation Language (HLPSL). The HLPSL speci cation is translated into an Intermediate Format (IF). The current version of the AVISPA tool integrates four back-ends: OFMC, CL-ATSE, SATMC and TA4SP. Before we run veri cations from AVISPA [23], [24], our protocol was written in the High Level Protocol Speci cation Language, or HLPSL. A xxxx xx model was written in order to be suitable for the OFMC validation. Once the HLPSL speci cation was debugged, it was checked automatically for attack detection using the AVISPA veri cation tools. Figure 7 shows the corresponding execution with AVISPA's OFMC tool. No reveals attacks were found, and the security goals concerning privacy and anonymity are reached. The protocol is also safe and a mutual strong authentication is established
Sample 1
Formal Analysis. With the formal validation BAN logic, we provide the proof of correctness of M2MAKA-FS. We demonstrate that a SK with FS can be agreed successfully after the process of mutual authentication among MC and SS. Now, the basic notations of BAN-logic are given below: • P |≡ X: P believes X. • P𝝰X: P sees X. i.e., P has received message containing X. • P|~ X: P said X. i.e., P has sent message containing X. • #(X): X is fresh. i.e., X is usually a temporary value. • P|⟹X: P has jurisdiction over X. • (X, Y): X or Y is part of message (X, Y). • 〈𝑋〉𝑌: X is encrypted with Y. • 𝐾 𝑃 ↔ 𝑄: P and Q can communicate with the shared secret key K. Next, we introduce some BAN logic rules as follows: 𝐾 1. Message meaning rule: 𝑃|≡Q↔𝑃, P𝝰〈𝑋〉𝐾 P|≡Q|~𝑋 If P believes that K is a shared secret key between P and Q and P has received messages X containing K, P believes that Q has sent message X. 2. Nonce-verification rule: 𝑃|≡ #(𝑋), P|≡𝑄|~𝑋 If P believes that X is a fresh message and Q has sent messages containing message X, P believes that Q believes message X. 3. Jurisdiction rule: P|≡Q|⟹𝑋,P|≡𝑄|≡𝑋 If P believes that Q controls message X and Q believes message X, P believes message 4. Freshness rule: P|≡ #(𝑋) 𝑃|≡ #(𝑋,𝑌) If P believes that X is a fresh message, P believes (X, Y) is fresh message. 5. Belief Rule: P|≡ (𝑋,𝑌) 𝑃|≡ (𝑋) If P believes message (X, Y), P believes message X. M2MAKA-FS needs to satisfy the following goals to ensure its security under BAN logic, using the above assumptions and postulates. a. AKA-goals AKA-Goal 1: AKA goals𝑀𝐶|≡(𝑀𝐶 ↔ ��𝑆) AKA-Goal 2: 𝑆𝑆|≡(SS↔ ��𝐶) AKA-Goal 3: 𝑀𝐶|≡𝑆𝑆|≡(SS↔ 𝑀𝐶) AKA-Goal 4: 𝑆𝑆|≡𝑀𝐶|≡ (𝑀𝐶 ↔ 𝑆𝑆) b. Key agreement with FS goals AKA-FS-Goal 1: CS|≡( 𝑑𝑖 𝐶𝑆 ↔ 𝑀𝐶) AKA-FS-Goal 2: CS|≡( 𝑑𝑠
Sample 1
Formal Analysis. In this subsection, we analyze IoTMAKA using BAN logic. BAN logic analyses protocols by using axioms to verify message origin, message freshness and trustworthiness of the origin of the message [8]. We use the following notations in formal security analysis using the BAN logic: • Q |≡ X: Principal Q believes the statement X. • #(X): Formula X is fresh. • Q| X: Principal Q has jurisdiction over the statement X. • | Q: Principal Q has a public key K. • Q X: Principal Q sees the statement X. • Q| X: Principal Q once said the statement X. • (X, Y): Formula X or Y is one part of the formula (X, Y). • : Formula P combined with the formula Q. • : Principal Q and R may use the shared session key, SK to communicate with each other. The session key SK is good, in that any principal except Q and R. will never discover it. In addition, we use the following BAN logic rules to prove that IoTMAKA provides a secure mutual authentication among IoT device, CS and SS: 1. Message-meaning rule: 2. Nonce-verification rule: 3. Jurisdiction rule: 4. Freshness rule: In order to show that IoTMAKA provides secure mutual authentication among IoT device with MC, CS and SS, we need to achieve the following goals: Goal 1: |≡( ) Goal 2: |≡(SS ) Goal 3: |≡ |≡(SS ) Goal 4: |≡ |≡ ( ) Idealized form: The arrangement of the transmitted messages among IoT device with MC, CS and SS in IoTMAKA to the idealized forms is as follows: Message 1. CS: <EIDi′>KCS, <M1>KCS, <M2>KCS, <M3>KCS Message 2.
Sample 1
Formal Analysis. What: Formal analysis of the SFE Survey data involves all analysis being conducted after the close of the survey and should be guided by the report template provided in Appendix E. In other words, the aim of formal analysis is to generate results that can be included in the full and targeted SFE reports in a similar format as to previous reports. Please refer to the 2012 Full Report for appropriate formatting. Who: The GRA is responsible for conducting all formal analysis. When: Formal analysis should begin either at the close of the SFE Survey or by the 3rd week of November at the latest. Formal analysis should be concluded no later than the end of January. IX. Issue Specific Follow-up Email Communication Task 14 – Follow-up Email Lists What: Two separate follow-up lists should be compiled. The first list should Who: The GRA should compile both lists. When: The follow-up email lists should be compiled before the 1st week of February. Task 15 – Follow-up Email Communication by DGS and/or ADAP When: Follow-up emails pertaining to mental health, harassment and other extraordinary events should be sent between the 1st and the 4th week of February. Task 16 – Follow-up Email Communication by GRA What: Individual follow-up emails should be sent to all host agency/organization POCs to inquire as to whether the agency/organization is interested in receiving another RSPH student in the future. A simple spreadsheet should be generated to include names and emails of those persons contacted and their response (i.e. yes, no, other). Who: The GRA is responsible for sending follow-up emails to host agency/organization POCs; however, the content of these emails should be discussed with and approved by the DGS. When: Follow-up emails to host agency/organization POCs should be sent between the 1st and the 4th week of February. X. Preparation of SFE-Related Content Xxxx 00 – SFE Information Table What: The SFE Information Table is a reference tool for students seeking to
Sample 1

Related to Formal Analysis

  • Risk Analysis The Custodian will provide the Fund with a Risk Analysis with respect to Securities Depositories operating in the countries listed in Appendix B. If the Custodian is unable to provide a Risk Analysis with respect to a particular Securities Depository, it will notify the Fund. If a new Securities Depository commences operation in one of the Appendix B countries, the Custodian will provide the Fund with a Risk Analysis in a reasonably practicable time after such Securities Depository becomes operational. If a new country is added to Appendix B, the Custodian will provide the Fund with a Risk Analysis with respect to each Securities Depository in that country within a reasonably practicable time after the addition of the country to Appendix B.

  • Escrow Analysis If applicable, with respect to each Mortgage Loan, the Seller has within the last twelve months (unless such Mortgage was originated within such twelve month period) analyzed the required Escrow Payments for each Mortgage and adjusted the amount of such payments so that, assuming all required payments are timely made, any deficiency will be eliminated on or before the first anniversary of such analysis, or any overage will be refunded to the Mortgagor, in accordance with RESPA and any other applicable law;

  • Sampling and Analysis The Seller has sole responsibility for quality control of the coal and shall forward its “as loaded” quality to the Buyer as soon as possible. The sampling and analysis of the coal delivered hereunder shall be performed by Buyer and the results thereof shall be accepted and used for the quality and characteristics of the coal delivered under this Agreement. All analyses shall be made in Buyer’s laboratory at Buyer’s expense in accordance with ASTM standards where applicable, or using standards mutually acceptable to both parties. Samples for analyses shall be taken by any ASTM standards or standards mutually acceptable to both parties, and may be composited and shall be taken with a frequency and regularity sufficient to provide reasonably accurate representative samples of the deliveries made hereunder. Seller represents that it is familiar with Buyer’s sampling and analysis practices, and finds them to be acceptable. Buyer shall notify Seller in writing of any significant changes in Buyer’s sampling and analysis practices. Any such changes in Buyer’s sampling and analysis practices shall, except for ASTM or mutually agreeable changes in practices, provide for no less accuracy than the sampling and analysis practices existing at the time of the execution of this Agreement, unless the Parties otherwise mutually agree. (1) part shall be used for analysis by Buyer; one (l) part shall be used by Buyer as a check sample, if Buyer in its sole judgment determines it is necessary; one (1) part shall be retained by Buyer (LG&E) until the twenty-fifth (25th) of the month following the month of unloading (the “LG&E Disposal Date”) or Buyer (KU) until thirty (30) days after the sample is taken (the “KU Disposal Date”), the LG&E Disposal Date and the KU Disposal Date are collectively the “Disposal Date”), and shall be delivered to Seller for analysis if Seller so requests before the Disposal Date; and one part (“Referee Sample”) shall be retained by Buyer until the Disposal Date. Seller shall be given copies of all analyses made by Buyer by the tenth (10th) business day of the month following the month of unloading. Seller, on reasonable notice to Buyer shall have the right to have a representative present to observe the sampling and analyses performed by Buyer. Unless Seller requests a Referee Sample analysis before the Disposal Date, Buyer’s analysis shall be used to determine the quality of the coal delivered hereunder. The Monthly Weighted Averages shall be determined by utilizing the individual shipment analyses. If any dispute arises before the Disposal Date, the Referee Sample retained by Buyer shall be submitted for analysis to an independent commercial testing laboratory (“Independent Lab”) mutually chosen by Buyer and Seller. For each coal quality specification in question, a dispute shall be deemed not to exist and Buyer’s analysis shall prevail and the analysis of the Independent Lab shall be disregarded if the analysis of the Independent Lab differs from the analysis of Buyer by an amount equal to or less than: (i) 0.50% moisture (ii) 0.50% ash on a dry basis (iii) 100 Btu/lb. on a dry basis (iv) 0.10% sulfur on a dry basis. For each coal quality specification in question, if the analysis of the Independent Lab differs from the analysis of Buyer by an amount more than the amounts listed above, then the analysis of the Independent Lab shall prevail and Buyer’s analysis shall be disregarded. The cost of the analysis made by the Independent Lab shall be borne by Seller to the extent that Buyer’s analysis prevails and by Buyer to the extent that the analysis of the Independent Lab prevails.

  • Quantitative Analysis Quantitative analysts develop and apply financial models designed to enable equity portfolio managers and fundamental analysts to screen potential and current investments, assess relative risk and enhance performance relative to benchmarks and peers. To the extent that such services are to be provided with respect to any Account which is a registered investment company, Categories 3, 4 and 5 above shall be treated as “investment advisory services” for purposes of Section 5(b) of the Agreement.”

  • Independent Analysis Each Party hereby confirms that its decision to execute this Agreement has been based upon its independent assessment of documents and information available to it, as it has deemed appropriate.

  • Root Cause Analysis Upon Vendor's failure to provide the Services in accordance with the applicable Service Levels (for any reason other than a Force Majeure Event) Vendor will promptly (a) perform a root-cause analysis to identify the cause of such failure, (b) provide Prudential with a report detailing the cause of, and procedure for correcting, such failure, (c) obtain Prudential's written approval of the proposed procedure for correcting such failure, (d) correct such failure in accordance with the approved procedure, (e) provide weekly (or more frequent, if appropriate) reports on the status of the correction efforts, and (f) provide Prudential with assurances satisfactory to Prudential that such failure has been corrected and will not recur.

  • Certificate of Analysis Seller shall provide a certificate of analysis and other documents as defined in the Quality Agreement for any Product to be released hereunder, in a form in accordance with the cGMPs and all other applicable Regulatory Requirements and Product Specifications and as shall be agreed upon by the parties. For any batch that initially failed to meet any Product Specification, the certificate of analysis shall document the exception. Products that do not meet dissolution specifications at USP Stage I and II testing shall not be accepted by Buyer (and such requirement shall be included in the Product Specifications/Quality Manual).

  • Research Analyst Independence The Company acknowledges that the Underwriters’ research analysts and research departments are required to be independent from their respective investment banking divisions and are subject to certain regulations and internal policies, and that such Underwriters’ research analysts may hold views and make statements or investment recommendations and/or publish research reports with respect to the Company and/or the offering that differ from the views of their respective investment banking divisions. The Company hereby waives and releases, to the fullest extent permitted by law, any claims that the Company may have against the Underwriters with respect to any conflict of interest that may arise from the fact that the views expressed by their independent research analysts and research departments may be different from or inconsistent with the views or advice communicated to the Company by such Underwriters’ investment banking divisions. The Company acknowledges that each of the Underwriters is a full service securities firm and as such from time to time, subject to applicable securities laws, may effect transactions for its own account or the account of its customers and hold long or short positions in debt or equity securities of the companies that may be the subject of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement.

  • Feasibility Study A feasibility study will identify the potential costs, service quality and other benefits which would result from contracting out the work in question. The cost analysis for the feasibility study shall not include the Employer’s indirect overhead costs for existing salaries or wages and benefits for administrative staff or for rent, equipment, utilities, and materials, except to the extent that such costs are attributable solely to performing the services to be contracted out. Upon completion of the feasibility study, the Employer agrees to furnish the Union with a copy if the feasibility study, the bid from the Apparent Successful Bidder and all pertinent information upon which the Employer based its decision to contract out the work including, but not limited to, the total cost savings the Employer anticipates. The Employer shall not go forward with contracting out the work in question if more than sixty percent (60%) of any projected savings resulting from the contracting out are attributable to lower employee wage and benefit costs.

  • Technology Research Analyst Job# 1810 General Characteristics

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!