Paper detail

Reasoning About Information Flow Security of Separation Kernels with Channel-based Communication

Assurance of information flow security by formal methods is mandated in security certification of separation kernels. As an industrial standard for separation kernels, ARINC 653 has been complied with by mainstream separation kernels. Security of functionalities defined in ARINC 653 is thus very important for the development and certification of separation kernels. This paper presents the first effort to formally specify and verify separation kernels with ARINC 653 channel-based communication. We provide a reusable formal specification and security proofs for separation kernels in Isabelle/HOL. During reasoning about information flow security, we find some security flaws in the ARINC 653 standard, which can cause information leakage, and fix them in our specification. We also validate the existence of the security flaws in two open-source ARINC 653 compliant separation kernels.

preprint2015arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.