src/HOL/Auth/NS_Public.thy

standardize mixfix annotations via "isabelle update -a -u mixfix_cartouches" --- to simplify systematic editing;

(*  Title:      HOL/Auth/NS_Public.thy
    Author:     Lawrence C Paulson, Cambridge University Computer Laboratory
    Copyright   1996  University of Cambridge
*)

section\<open>The Needham-Schroeder Public-Key Protocol\<close>

text \<open>Flawed version, vulnerable to Lowe's attack.
From Burrows, Abadi and Needham.  A Logic of Authentication.
  Proc. Royal Soc. 426 (1989), p. 260\<close>

theory NS_Public imports Public begin

inductive_set ns_public :: "event list set"
  where
   Nil:  "[] \<in> ns_public"
   \<comment> \<open>Initial trace is empty\<close>
 | Fake: "\<lbrakk>evsf \<in> ns_public;  X \<in> synth (analz (spies evsf))\<rbrakk>
          \<Longrightarrow> Says Spy B X  # evsf \<in> ns_public"
   \<comment> \<open>The spy can say almost anything.\<close>
 | NS1:  "\<lbrakk>evs1 \<in> ns_public;  Nonce NA \<notin> used evs1\<rbrakk>
          \<Longrightarrow> Says A B (Crypt (pubEK B) \<lbrace>Nonce NA, Agent A\<rbrace>)
                # evs1  \<in>  ns_public"
   \<comment> \<open>Alice initiates a protocol run, sending a nonce to Bob\<close>
 | NS2:  "\<lbrakk>evs2 \<in> ns_public;  Nonce NB \<notin> used evs2;
           Says A' B (Crypt (pubEK B) \<lbrace>Nonce NA, Agent A\<rbrace>) \<in> set evs2\<rbrakk>
          \<Longrightarrow> Says B A (Crypt (pubEK A) \<lbrace>Nonce NA, Nonce NB, Agent B\<rbrace>)
                # evs2  \<in>  ns_public"
   \<comment> \<open>Bob responds to Alice's message with a further nonce\<close>
 | NS3:  "\<lbrakk>evs3 \<in> ns_public;
           Says A  B (Crypt (pubEK B) \<lbrace>Nonce NA, Agent A\<rbrace>) \<in> set evs3;
           Says B' A (Crypt (pubEK A) \<lbrace>Nonce NA, Nonce NB, Agent B\<rbrace>) \<in> set evs3\<rbrakk>
          \<Longrightarrow> Says A B (Crypt (pubEK B) (Nonce NB)) # evs3 \<in> ns_public"
   \<comment> \<open>Alice proves her existence by sending @{term NB} back to Bob.\<close>

declare knows_Spy_partsEs [elim]
declare analz_into_parts [dest]
declare Fake_parts_insert_in_Un [dest]

text \<open>A "possibility property": there are traces that reach the end\<close>
lemma "\<exists>NB. \<exists>evs \<in> ns_public. Says A B (Crypt (pubEK B) (Nonce NB)) \<in> set evs"
  apply (intro exI bexI)
   apply (rule_tac [2] ns_public.Nil [THEN ns_public.NS1, THEN ns_public.NS2, THEN ns_public.NS3])
  by possibility


subsection \<open>Inductive proofs about @{term ns_public}\<close>

(** Theorems of the form X \<notin> parts (spies evs) imply that NOBODY
    sends messages containing X! **)

text \<open>Spy never sees another agent's private key! (unless it's bad at start)\<close>
lemma Spy_see_priEK [simp]:
  "evs \<in> ns_public \<Longrightarrow> (Key (priEK A) \<in> parts (spies evs)) = (A \<in> bad)"
  by (erule ns_public.induct, auto)

lemma Spy_analz_priEK [simp]:
  "evs \<in> ns_public \<Longrightarrow> (Key (priEK A) \<in> analz (spies evs)) = (A \<in> bad)"
  by auto


subsection \<open>Authenticity properties obtained from {term NS1}\<close>

text \<open>It is impossible to re-use a nonce in both {term NS1} and {term NS2}, provided the nonce
  is secret.  (Honest users generate fresh nonces.)\<close>
lemma no_nonce_NS1_NS2: 
      "\<lbrakk>evs \<in> ns_public;
        Crypt (pubEK C) \<lbrace>NA', Nonce NA, Agent D\<rbrace> \<in> parts (spies evs);
        Crypt (pubEK B) \<lbrace>Nonce NA, Agent A\<rbrace> \<in> parts (spies evs)\<rbrakk>  
       \<Longrightarrow> Nonce NA \<in> analz (spies evs)"
  by (induct rule: ns_public.induct) (auto intro: analz_insertI)


text \<open>Unicity for {term NS1}: nonce {term NA} identifies agents {term A} and {term B}\<close>
lemma unique_NA:
  assumes NA: "Crypt(pubEK B)  \<lbrace>Nonce NA, Agent A \<rbrace> \<in> parts(spies evs)"
              "Crypt(pubEK B') \<lbrace>Nonce NA, Agent A'\<rbrace> \<in> parts(spies evs)"
              "Nonce NA \<notin> analz (spies evs)"
    and evs: "evs \<in> ns_public"
  shows "A=A' \<and> B=B'"
  using evs NA
  by (induction rule: ns_public.induct) (auto intro!: analz_insertI split: if_split_asm)


text \<open>Secrecy: Spy does not see the nonce sent in msg {term NS1} if {term A} and {term B} are secure
  The major premise "Says A B ..." makes it a dest-rule, hence the given assumption order. \<close>
theorem Spy_not_see_NA:
  assumes NA: "Says A B (Crypt(pubEK B) \<lbrace>Nonce NA, Agent A\<rbrace>) \<in> set evs"
              "A \<notin> bad" "B \<notin> bad"
    and evs: "evs \<in> ns_public"
  shows "Nonce NA \<notin> analz (spies evs)"
  using evs NA
proof (induction rule: ns_public.induct)
  case (Fake evsf X B)
  then show ?case
    by spy_analz
next
  case (NS2 evs2 NB A' B NA A)
  then show ?case
    by simp (metis Says_imp_analz_Spy analz_into_parts parts.simps unique_NA usedI)
next
  case (NS3 evs3 A B NA B' NB)
  then show ?case
    by simp (meson Says_imp_analz_Spy analz_into_parts no_nonce_NS1_NS2)
qed auto


text \<open>Authentication for {term A}: if she receives message 2 and has used {term NA}
  to start a run, then {term B} has sent message 2.\<close>
lemma A_trusts_NS2_lemma: 
    "\<lbrakk>evs \<in> ns_public;            
      Crypt (pubEK A) \<lbrace>Nonce NA, Nonce NB, Agent B\<rbrace> \<in> parts (spies evs);
      Says A B (Crypt(pubEK B) \<lbrace>Nonce NA, Agent A\<rbrace>) \<in> set evs;
      A \<notin> bad; B \<notin> bad\<rbrakk>
     \<Longrightarrow> Says B A (Crypt(pubEK A) \<lbrace>Nonce NA, Nonce NB, Agent B\<rbrace>) \<in> set evs"
  by (induct rule: ns_public.induct) (auto dest: Spy_not_see_NA unique_NA)

theorem A_trusts_NS2:
     "\<lbrakk>Says A  B (Crypt(pubEK B) \<lbrace>Nonce NA, Agent A\<rbrace>) \<in> set evs;
       Says B' A (Crypt(pubEK A) \<lbrace>Nonce NA, Nonce NB, Agent B\<rbrace>) \<in> set evs;
       A \<notin> bad;  B \<notin> bad;  evs \<in> ns_public\<rbrakk>
      \<Longrightarrow> Says B A (Crypt(pubEK A) \<lbrace>Nonce NA, Nonce NB, Agent B\<rbrace>) \<in> set evs"
  by (blast intro: A_trusts_NS2_lemma)


text \<open>If the encrypted message appears then it originated with Alice in {term NS1}\<close>
lemma B_trusts_NS1:
     "\<lbrakk>evs \<in> ns_public;                                     
       Crypt (pubEK B) \<lbrace>Nonce NA, Agent A\<rbrace> \<in> parts (spies evs);
       Nonce NA \<notin> analz (spies evs)\<rbrakk>
      \<Longrightarrow> Says A B (Crypt (pubEK B) \<lbrace>Nonce NA, Agent A\<rbrace>) \<in> set evs"
  by (induct evs rule: ns_public.induct) (use analz_insertI in \<open>auto split: if_split_asm\<close>)


subsection \<open>Authenticity properties obtained from {term NS2}\<close>

text \<open>Unicity for {term NS2}: nonce {term NB} identifies nonce {term NA} and agent {term A} 
  [proof closely follows that for @{thm [source] unique_NA}]\<close>

lemma unique_NB [dest]:
  assumes NB: "Crypt(pubEK A) \<lbrace>Nonce NA, Nonce NB, Agent B\<rbrace> \<in> parts(spies evs)"
              "Crypt(pubEK A') \<lbrace>Nonce NA', Nonce NB, Agent B'\<rbrace> \<in> parts(spies evs)"
              "Nonce NB \<notin> analz (spies evs)"
    and evs: "evs \<in> ns_public"
  shows "A=A' \<and> NA=NA' \<and> B=B'"
  using evs NB
  by (induction rule: ns_public.induct) (auto intro!: analz_insertI split: if_split_asm)


text \<open>{term NB} remains secret\<close>
theorem Spy_not_see_NB [dest]:
  assumes NB: "Says B A (Crypt (pubEK A) \<lbrace>Nonce NA, Nonce NB, Agent B\<rbrace>) \<in> set evs"
              "A \<notin> bad" "B \<notin> bad"
    and evs: "evs \<in> ns_public"
  shows "Nonce NB \<notin> analz (spies evs)"
  using evs NB evs
proof (induction rule: ns_public.induct)
  case Fake
  then show ?case by spy_analz
next
  case NS2
  then show ?case
    by (auto intro!: no_nonce_NS1_NS2)
qed auto


text \<open>Authentication for {term B}: if he receives message 3 and has used {term NB}
  in message 2, then {term A} has sent message 3.\<close>
lemma B_trusts_NS3_lemma:
     "\<lbrakk>evs \<in> ns_public;
       Crypt (pubEK B) (Nonce NB) \<in> parts (spies evs);
       Says B A (Crypt (pubEK A) \<lbrace>Nonce NA, Nonce NB, Agent B\<rbrace>) \<in> set evs;
       A \<notin> bad;  B \<notin> bad\<rbrakk>
      \<Longrightarrow> Says A B (Crypt (pubEK B) (Nonce NB)) \<in> set evs"
proof (induction rule: ns_public.induct)
  case (NS3 evs3 A B NA B' NB)
  then show ?case
    by simp (blast intro: no_nonce_NS1_NS2)
qed auto

theorem B_trusts_NS3:
     "\<lbrakk>Says B A  (Crypt (pubEK A) \<lbrace>Nonce NA, Nonce NB, Agent B\<rbrace>) \<in> set evs;
       Says A' B (Crypt (pubEK B) (Nonce NB)) \<in> set evs;
       A \<notin> bad;  B \<notin> bad;  evs \<in> ns_public\<rbrakk>
      \<Longrightarrow> Says A B (Crypt (pubEK B) (Nonce NB)) \<in> set evs"
  by (blast intro: B_trusts_NS3_lemma)


subsection\<open>Overall guarantee for {term B}\<close>

text \<open>If NS3 has been sent and the nonce NB agrees with the nonce B joined with
  NA, then A initiated the run using NA.\<close>
theorem B_trusts_protocol:
     "\<lbrakk>A \<notin> bad;  B \<notin> bad;  evs \<in> ns_public\<rbrakk> \<Longrightarrow>
      Crypt (pubEK B) (Nonce NB) \<in> parts (spies evs) \<longrightarrow>
      Says B A  (Crypt (pubEK A) \<lbrace>Nonce NA, Nonce NB, Agent B\<rbrace>) \<in> set evs \<longrightarrow>
      Says A B (Crypt (pubEK B) \<lbrace>Nonce NA, Agent A\<rbrace>) \<in> set evs"
by (erule ns_public.induct, auto)

end