Verifying a signature architecture: a comparative case study

TL;DR: Contrary to common belief, the case study suggests that Z is well suited for temporal reasoning about process models with complex operations on data and provides evidence that, in the hands of an experienced user, theorem proving may be neither substantially more time-consuming nor more complex than model checking.

Abstract: We report on a case study in applying different formal methods to model and verify an architecture for administrating digital signatures. The architecture comprises several concurrently executing systems that authenticate users and generate and store digital signatures by passing security relevant data through a tightly controlled interface. The architecture is interesting from a formal-methods perspective as it involves complex operations on data as well as process coordination and hence is a candidate for both data-oriented and process-oriented formal methods. We have built and verified two models of the signature architecture using two representative formal methods. In the first, we specify a data model of the architecture in Z that we extend to a trace model and interactively verify by theorem proving. In the second, we model the architecture as a system of communicating processes that we verify by finite-state model checking. We provide a detailed comparison of these two different approaches to formalization (infinite state with rich data types versus finite state) and verification (theorem proving versus model checking). Contrary to common belief, our case study suggests that Z is well suited for temporal reasoning about process models with complex operations on data. Moreover, our comparison highlights the advantages of proving theorems about such models and provides evidence that, in the hands of an experienced user, theorem proving may be neither substantially more time-consuming nor more complex than model checking.