Formal verification Sample Clauses

Formal verification simulation results: LAKA is ver- ified using the on-the-fly model checker (OFMC) backend, which is widely utilized by several schemes, e.g., [17], [22], [39], [40]. The OFMC verifies against the replay attack and the MITM attack with the bounded number of sessions. Fig. 7 depicts the verification results, i.e., SAFE from the Xxxxx-Xxx attack model and GOALs are achieved as specified. role environment() def= Const SmartMeter, NANGatway: agent, SK : symmetric_key, ST : symmetric_key, SMpub : public_key, H: hash_func, XXxx,Nid,uSM, vN, alpha, beta, t1, t2 : text, SmartMeter_NAN_uSM, NAN_SmartMeter_vN, : protocol_id, SmartMeter_NAN_SMid, NAN_SmartMeter_Nid : protocol_id, SmartMeter_NAN_T1, NAN_SmartMeter_T2 : protocol_id, SmartMeter_NAN_alpha, NAN_SmartMeter_beta : protocol_id, sub1, sub2, sub3 : protocol_id intruder knowledge = {SmartMeter, NANGateway, H} composition session (SmartMeter, NANGateway, H) /\ session (SmartMeter, i, H) /\ session (NANGateway, i, H) end role goal secrecy_of sub1 % secrecy_of sub2 % secrecy_of sub3 authentication_on SmaterMeter_NAN_SMid authentication_on NAN_SmartMeter_Nid authentication_on SmaterMeter_NAN_T1 authentication_on NAN_SmaterMeter_T2 end goal environment() Fig. 6. Environment and goal in HLPSL. % OFMC % Version of 2006/02/13 SUMMARY SAFE DETAILS BOUNDED_NUMBER_OF_SESSIONS PROTOCOL /home/span/span/project/LAKA.if GOAL as_specified BACKEND OFMC COMMENTS STATISTICS parseTime: 0.00s searchTime: 0.07s visitedNodes: 12 nodes depth: 1000 plies
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (4)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Formal verification. As a system architecture description language, EAST-ADL plays an important role for consolidating various kinds of behavior concerns in the engineering of automotive EE systems. In MAENAD, an investigation of the EAST-ADL support for formal verification of behaviour centric system properties, based on the regenerative braking system case, will be carried out. The aim is to validate the EAST-ADL support for formalizing various temporal concerns, such as during requirements engineering, function and execution design, safety engineering, etc. By aligning the EAST-ADL semantics with existing mature formalisms, one can then allow formal verification of such concerns through the corresponding external analysis engines. One advantage is that the EAST-ADL users will then obtain analysis leverage by model-checking. Compared to those standalone analytical models in external tools, EAST-ADL models complement with detailed architecture information and facilitate the integration of many related architectural aspects for the purpose of architecture design, safety engineering, reuse and change management. Key points for the analysis The most important objective of this case study is to validate the EAST-ADL support for temporal constraints as well as the claimed advantages to be brought in by EAST-ADL. This will be achieved through two existing mature formalisms: UPPAAL and SPIN. Both UPPAAL and SPIN allow exhaustive reasoning of the compositional consequence of behaviours. They are considered as two representative technologies in the area of formal verification. • UPPAAL is a timed model checker for formal verification of real-time embedded systems (xxxx://xxx.xxxxxx.xxx/). Based on timed-automata theory, UPPAAL provides support for modelling and simulating system behaviours in the form of compositional automata. The tool has been used in several industrial cases and is recently commercialized. • SPIN is a model checker for formal verification of distributed and concurrent systems (xxxx://xxxxxxxx.xxx). Compare to UPPAAL, the SPIN approach emphasizes the logical aspects of temporal behaviours. It deliberatively avoids the quantitative notion of time, but focuses on the interaction and synchronization of asynchronous processes. This simplification allows SPIN to verify the functional or logical properties of more complex system than timed model checkers usually do. The intended language validation through UPPAAL and SPIN will be performed in the context of FEV developmen...
Sample 1
Formal verification. 1. Per the schedule(s) (to be jointly developed and to be made part of this Contract), the City and Contractor shall schedule acceptance testing on a module-by-module basis. Any given module shall be deemed as formally accepted only after passing Formal Acceptance Testing, or when used in live, non-paralleled operation for ninety (90) consecutive calendar days (City may run modules in parallel with existing systems for up to ninety (90) calendar days). The testing will be based on Documentation, and other conditions mutually agreed to by both parties, and acceptable hardware performance standards (see Warranty clause above). Should the test fail, City shall give Contractor notice of non-acceptance describing in reasonable detail the material failure. Contractor shall be granted thirty (30) calendar days to cure non-acceptance condition(s) and another Formal Acceptance Test shall then be scheduled. This procedure may be repeated should City decide to do so. Note that all modifications, interfaces, report writer files, etc., programmed by Contractor shall be subject to individual acceptance testing as described herein. The right to determine Formal Acceptance shall be held by the City’s Project Manager.
Sample 1
Formal verification. 19 3.1.1.2 Measurement techniques 19 3.1.2 Dynamic Verification 19
Sample 1
Formal verification. A formal verification is being conducted using formal methods of mathematics in order to verify the correctness of a system. Formal verification can be conducted for both hardware and software [20]. One general approach for formal verification is model checking. Here, a mathematical model is used to verify a system in all its possible states. Notable implementation techniques are abstract interpretation, symbolic simulation or state space enumeration. Model checking is often fully automatic, but generally it does not scale well to large systems. Deductive verification is another approach to formal verification. Here, a collection of mathematical proof obligations is generated from the specifications, which are then being tested by a (interactive or automatic) verification system. This approach requires the user to understand in detail why the system works correctly.
Sample 1
Formal verification. Apply formal verification techniques to rigorously analyze the security properties of AIBAK systems and ensure their correctness with respect to specified security requirements. This can provide strong guarantees against potential vulnerabilities or attacks. Privacy-Preserving Protocols: Research and develop privacy-preserving protocols for AIBAK systems that minimize the amount of sensitive information exposed during authentication and key agreement processes. This can help protect user privacy against unauthorized access or surveillance. By incorporating these future enhancements, AIBAK systems can become more secure, scalable, privacy-preserving, and user- friendly, addressing the evolving needs and challenges of modern authentication and key agreement scenarios. REFERENCES :
Sample 1
Formal verification. ‌ Software verification is a well-established formal technique for reasoning about programs [103]. A number of developments during the last decade brought dramatic changes to how deductive verification is being perceived and used [22]. Deductive verification tools have moved from being stand-alone applications that were usable effectively only after years of academic training to tool suites usable after minimal training and integrated into modern IDEs [19, 23].
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Formal verification

  • E-Verification If applicable, Contractor represents and warrants that it will ensure its compliance with the Mississippi Employment Protection Act of 2008, and will register and participate in the status verification system for all newly hired employees. Mississippi Code Annotated §§ 71-11-1 et seq. The term “employee” as used herein means any person that is hired to perform work within the State of Mississippi. As used herein, “status verification system” means the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 that is operated by the United States Department of Homeland Security, also known as the E-Verify Program, or any other successor electronic verification system replacing the E-Verify Program. Contractor agrees to maintain records of such compliance. Upon request of the State and after approval of the Social Security Administration or Department of Homeland Security when required, Contractor agrees to provide a copy of each such verification. Contractor further represents and warrants that any person assigned to perform services hereafter meets the employment eligibility requirements of all immigration laws. The breach of this agreement may subject Contractor to the following:

  • Medical Verification The Town may require medical verification of an employee’s absence if the Town perceives the employee is abusing sick leave or has used an excessive amount of sick leave. The Town may require medical verification of an employee’s absence to verify that the employee is able to return to work with or without restrictions.

  • Account Verification Whether or not a Default or Event of Default exists, Agent shall have the right at any time, in the name of Agent, any designee of Agent or any Borrower, to verify the validity, amount or any other matter relating to any Accounts of Borrowers by mail, telephone or otherwise. Borrowers shall cooperate fully with Agent in an effort to facilitate and promptly conclude any such verification process.

  • Third Party Verification 4.8.1 The SPD shall be further required to provide entry to the site of the Power Project free of all encumbrances at all times during the Term of the Agreement to SECI and a third Party nominated by any Indian Governmental Instrumentality for inspection and verification of the works being carried out by the SPD at the site of the Power Project.

  • Eligibility Verification (a) HHSC will verify Medicaid eligibility for Dual Eligible Members by the fifth business day of the month following the receipt of the MA Dual SNP’s monthly enrollment file, in accordance with Section 3.02(b).

  • Employee Verification In accordance with Neb. Rev.

  • Identity Verification In the case that the Subscriber provides telecommunication services to any Subscriber’s Customers pursuant to Section 8.1, the Subscriber is responsible for performing and shall perform personal identification of Subscriber’s Customer. SORACOM shall not bear any responsibility in relation to dealing with such matters.

  • Electronic Visit Verification (EVV). Provider shall cooperate with State requirements for electronic visit verification for personal care services and home health services, as applicable.

  • Seniority Verification Process i. The new school district shall provide the employee with the necessary verification form at the time the employee achieves continuing contract status.

  • Verification Procedure (1) The signature file of each processed file is validated.

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