James A. Malcolm – författare

This book constitutes the thoroughly refereed post-proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Security Protocols, held in Cambridge, UK, in April 2002.The 16 revised full papers presented together with transcriptions of the discussions following the presentations have passed through two rounds of reviewing, revision, and selection. Also included are abstracts and summaries of an introduction and a keynote, as well as a concluding discussion and statement. Among the topics addressed are authentication, mobile ad-hoc network security, secure distributed document processing, access control, confidentiality, protocol attacks, delegation, certified transfer servers, intrusion tolerance, multi-party communication protocols, IPv6 security, and others.

Greetings. These are the proceedings of the 11th in our series of International Workshops on Security Protocols. Our theme this time was “Where have all the Protocols gone?” Once upon a time security protocols lived mainly in the network and transport layers. Now they increasingly hide in applications, or in specialised hardware. Does this trend lead to better security architectures, or is it an indication that we are addressing the wrong problems? The intention of the workshops is to provide a forum where incompletely workedoutideascanstimulatediscussion,openupnewlinesofinvestigation,and suggestmoreproblems. The positionpaperspublished herehavebeen revisedby the authors in the light of their participation in the workshop. In addition, we publish edited transcripts of some of the discussions, to give our readers access to some of the roads ahead not (yet) taken. We hope that these revised position papers and edited transcripts will give you at least one interesting idea of your own to explore. Please do write and tell us what it was. Our purpose in publishing these proceedings is to produce a conceptual map which will be of enduring interest, rather than to be merely topical. This is perhaps just as well, given the delay in production. This year we moved to new computer-based recording technology, and of course it failed completely.

Greetings. These are the proceedings of the 11th in our series of International Workshops on Security Protocols. Our theme this time was “Where have all the Protocols gone?” Once upon a time security protocols lived mainly in the network and transport layers. Now they increasingly hide in applications, or in specialised hardware. Does this trend lead to better security architectures, or is it an indication that we are addressing the wrong problems? The intention of the workshops is to provide a forum where incompletely workedoutideascanstimulatediscussion,openupnewlinesofinvestigation,and suggestmoreproblems. The positionpaperspublished herehavebeen revisedby the authors in the light of their participation in the workshop. In addition, we publish edited transcripts of some of the discussions, to give our readers access to some of the roads ahead not (yet) taken. We hope that these revised position papers and edited transcripts will give you at least one interesting idea of your own to explore. Please do write and tell us what it was. Our purpose in publishing these proceedings is to produce a conceptual map which will be of enduring interest, rather than to be merely topical. This is perhaps just as well, given the delay in production. This year we moved to new computer-based recording technology, and of course it failed completely.

Once again we bring you the proceedings of the International Workshop on Security Protocols. It seems hard to believe that we have reached the tenth event in this annual series. This year our theme was “Discerning the Protocol Participants.” Security protocols are usually described in terms of the active participants – Alice c- putes foo and sends it to Bob. However most security protocols also include o?-line participants, which are not synchronously involved in the exchange of messages: a bank may participate on behalf of a customer, and an arbiter may subsequently be asked to interpret the meaning of a run. These silent partners to the protocol have their own security policies, and assumptionsaboutidentity,authorizationandcapabilityneedtobere-examined when the agenda of a hidden participant may change. We hope that the position papers published here, which have been rewritten and rethought in the light of the discussions at the workshop, will be of interest, not just for the speci?c contributions they make but also for the deeper issues which they expose. In order to identify these issues more clearly, we include transcripts for some of the discussions which took place in Cambridge during the workshop. What would you have liked to add? Do let us know.

Here are the proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Security P- tocols. We hope that you will enjoy them, and that they will cause you to think at least one heretical thought. Please write or e-mail and share it with us. Our theme this workshop was “Authentic Privacy.” Traditionally we have based authentication upon a rather strong notion of identity, and have then built other security services on top of authentication. Perhaps if we want a more nuanced notion of privacy, then we need to re-examine some of our assu- tions, particularly when attackers and defenders share the same resources and infrastructure. The position papers published here have been revised by the participants in the workshop, and are followed by edited (heavily in some cases) transcripts of parts of the discussions which they led. Our thanks to Sidney Sussex CollegeCambridgefor the use of their facilities, to Johanna Hunt at the University of Hertfordshire for organizing the logistics of the workshop and orchestrating the production of these proceedings, to Lori KlimaszewskaoftheUniversityofCambridgeComputingServicefortranscribing the audio tapes (in which “viruses without halos” could have caused havoc but didn’t), and to Donald Hunt for impeccable copyediting. Finally, it is both a sadness and a pleasure to pay our tribute to David Wheeler,oneoftheoriginalforty-ninersattheCambridgeComputerLaboratory and author of the initial orders for EDSAC. The second version of initial orders is the Platonic bootstrap.

Here are the proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Security P- tocols. We hope that you will enjoy them, and that they will cause you to think at least one heretical thought. Please write or e-mail and share it with us. Our theme this workshop was “Authentic Privacy.” Traditionally we have based authentication upon a rather strong notion of identity, and have then built other security services on top of authentication. Perhaps if we want a more nuanced notion of privacy, then we need to re-examine some of our assu- tions, particularly when attackers and defenders share the same resources and infrastructure. The position papers published here have been revised by the participants in the workshop, and are followed by edited (heavily in some cases) transcripts of parts of the discussions which they led. Our thanks to Sidney Sussex CollegeCambridgefor the use of their facilities, to Johanna Hunt at the University of Hertfordshire for organizing the logistics of the workshop and orchestrating the production of these proceedings, to Lori KlimaszewskaoftheUniversityofCambridgeComputingServicefortranscribing the audio tapes (in which “viruses without halos” could have caused havoc but didn’t), and to Donald Hunt for impeccable copyediting. Finally, it is both a sadness and a pleasure to pay our tribute to David Wheeler,oneoftheoriginalforty-ninersattheCambridgeComputerLaboratory and author of the initial orders for EDSAC. The second version of initial orders is the Platonic bootstrap.

The Cambridge International Workshop on Security Protocols has now run for eight years. Each year we set a theme, focusing upon a speci?c aspect of security protocols, and invite position papers. Anybody is welcome to send us a position paper (yes, you are invited) and we don’t insist they relate to the current theme in an obvious way. In our experience, the emergence of the theme as a unifying threadtakesplaceduringthediscussionsattheworkshopitself.Theonlyground rule is that position papers should formulate an approach to some unresolved issues, rather than being a description of a ?nished piece of work. Whentheparticipantsmeet,wetrytofocusthediscussionsupontheconc- tual issues which emerge. Security protocols link naturally to many other areas of Computer Science, and deep water can be reached very quickly. Afterwards, we invite participants to re-draft their position papers in a way which exposes the emergent issues but leaves open the way to their further development. We also prepare written transcripts of the recorded discussions. These are edited (in some cases very heavily) to illustrate the way in which the di?erent arguments and perspectives have interacted. We publish these proceedings as an invitation to the research community. Although many interesting results ?rst see the light of day in a volume of our proceedings, laying claim to these is not our primary purpose of publication. Rather, we bring our discussions and insights to a wider audience in order to suggest new lines of investigation which the community may fruitfully pursue.

Hello and welcome. These are the proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Security Protocols, the ?rst to be held in the new millennium. This year our theme was “mobile computing versus immobile security”. As usual, the insights and challenges which emerged during the workshop are re?ected in the position papers, which appear here in rewritten form. Transcripts are also included of the discussions which took place in C- bridge as the initial versions were presented. These transcripts are intended to provide a perspective on lines of argument which are worth pursuing further. Our desire is that you will join with us in this activity, and that as a result you will, like many of our participants, feel moved to propound something quite di?erent from what you originally planned. Our thanks as always to Prof. Roger Needham, FRS and to Microsoft - search Ltd. (Cambridge) for the use of the meeting room and co?ee machine. Thanks also to Lori Klimaszewska of the University of Cambridge Computing Service for transcribing the audio tapes (and for revealing in “Audrey James” a previously unsuspected double life of a well-known double agent), and to Dr. Mary Buchanan for her assistance in editing the transcripts into a Thucydidean mould. Actually, we are often asked how we go about producing the transcripts, especially upon those occasions when, for various reasons, no audio recording was made. This year we bow to pressure and reveal the details of our methodology in the Afterword.

The Cambridge International Workshop on Security Protocols has now run for eight years. Each year we set a theme, focusing upon a speci?c aspect of security protocols, and invite position papers. Anybody is welcome to send us a position paper (yes, you are invited) and we don’t insist they relate to the current theme in an obvious way. In our experience, the emergence of the theme as a unifying threadtakesplaceduringthediscussionsattheworkshopitself.Theonlyground rule is that position papers should formulate an approach to some unresolved issues, rather than being a description of a ?nished piece of work. Whentheparticipantsmeet,wetrytofocusthediscussionsupontheconc- tual issues which emerge. Security protocols link naturally to many other areas of Computer Science, and deep water can be reached very quickly. Afterwards, we invite participants to re-draft their position papers in a way which exposes the emergent issues but leaves open the way to their further development. We also prepare written transcripts of the recorded discussions. These are edited (in some cases very heavily) to illustrate the way in which the di?erent arguments and perspectives have interacted. We publish these proceedings as an invitation to the research community. Although many interesting results ?rst see the light of day in a volume of our proceedings, laying claim to these is not our primary purpose of publication. Rather, we bring our discussions and insights to a wider audience in order to suggest new lines of investigation which the community may fruitfully pursue.

Another year, another workshop. Here are the proceedings of the seventh Cambridge International Workshop on Security Protocols. All very well, you may think, but can there really still be anything genuinely new to say? Is it not just the same old things a tiny bit better? Well, perhaps surprisingly, this year we discoveredsome radically new things beginning to happen. The reasons in retrospect are not far to seek: advances in technology, changes in the system context, and new types of consumer devices and applications have combined to expose new security requirements. This has led not only to new protocols and models, but also to known protocols being deployedindelicate newways,withpreviousfragilitiesofwatermarkingand- tual authentication, for example, becoming desirable features. At the workshop we identi?ed several of these developments and began to map out some lines of enquiry. This volume brings you a selection of deliberately disputatious position - pers, followed by not-quite-verbatim transcripts of the discussions which they provoked. As always, our purpose in making these proceedings available to you is the hope that they will move your thinking in an unexpected direction. If you ?nd your attention caught by something here, if it makes you pause to re?ect, or to think “why, that is justso wrong”,then good. We’re waiting for your mail.

Hello and welcome. These are the proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Security Protocols, the ?rst to be held in the new millennium. This year our theme was “mobile computing versus immobile security”. As usual, the insights and challenges which emerged during the workshop are re?ected in the position papers, which appear here in rewritten form. Transcripts are also included of the discussions which took place in C- bridge as the initial versions were presented. These transcripts are intended to provide a perspective on lines of argument which are worth pursuing further. Our desire is that you will join with us in this activity, and that as a result you will, like many of our participants, feel moved to propound something quite di?erent from what you originally planned. Our thanks as always to Prof. Roger Needham, FRS and to Microsoft - search Ltd. (Cambridge) for the use of the meeting room and co?ee machine. Thanks also to Lori Klimaszewska of the University of Cambridge Computing Service for transcribing the audio tapes (and for revealing in “Audrey James” a previously unsuspected double life of a well-known double agent), and to Dr. Mary Buchanan for her assistance in editing the transcripts into a Thucydidean mould. Actually, we are often asked how we go about producing the transcripts, especially upon those occasions when, for various reasons, no audio recording was made. This year we bow to pressure and reveal the details of our methodology in the Afterword.

Another year, another workshop. Here are the proceedings of the seventh Cambridge International Workshop on Security Protocols. All very well, you may think, but can there really still be anything genuinely new to say? Is it not just the same old things a tiny bit better? Well, perhaps surprisingly, this year we discoveredsome radically new things beginning to happen. The reasons in retrospect are not far to seek: advances in technology, changes in the system context, and new types of consumer devices and applications have combined to expose new security requirements. This has led not only to new protocols and models, but also to known protocols being deployedindelicate newways,withpreviousfragilitiesofwatermarkingand- tual authentication, for example, becoming desirable features. At the workshop we identi?ed several of these developments and began to map out some lines of enquiry. This volume brings you a selection of deliberately disputatious position - pers, followed by not-quite-verbatim transcripts of the discussions which they provoked. As always, our purpose in making these proceedings available to you is the hope that they will move your thinking in an unexpected direction. If you ?nd your attention caught by something here, if it makes you pause to re?ect, or to think “why, that is justso wrong”,then good. We’re waiting for your mail.

Welcome back to the International Security Protocols Workshop. Our theme for this, the 14th workshop in the series, is “Putting the Human Back in the Protocol”. We’ve got into the habit of saying “Of course, Alice and Bob aren’t really people. Alice and Bob are actually programs running in some computers.” But we build computer systems in order to enable people to interact in accordance with certain social protocols. So if we’re serious about system services being end-to-end then, at some level of abstraction, the end points Alice and Bob are humanafterall.Thishascertainconsequences.Weexploresomeoftheminthese proceedings, in the hope that this will encourage you to pursue them further. Is Alice talking to the correct stranger? Our thanks to Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge for the use of their faci- ties, and to the University of Hertfordshire for lending us several of their sta?. Particular thanks once again to Lori Klimaszewska of the University of C- bridge Computing Service for transcribing the audio tapes, and to Virgil Gligor for acting as our advisor.

Welcome back to the International Security Protocols Workshop. Our theme for this, the 14th workshop in the series, is “Putting the Human Back in the Protocol”. We’ve got into the habit of saying “Of course, Alice and Bob aren’t really people. Alice and Bob are actually programs running in some computers.” But we build computer systems in order to enable people to interact in accordance with certain social protocols. So if we’re serious about system services being end-to-end then, at some level of abstraction, the end points Alice and Bob are humanafterall.Thishascertainconsequences.Weexploresomeoftheminthese proceedings, in the hope that this will encourage you to pursue them further. Is Alice talking to the correct stranger? Our thanks to Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge for the use of their faci- ties, and to the University of Hertfordshire for lending us several of their sta?. Particular thanks once again to Lori Klimaszewska of the University of C- bridge Computing Service for transcribing the audio tapes, and to Virgil Gligor for acting as our advisor.

This book constitutes the thoroughly refereed post-proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Security Protocols, held in Brno, Czech Republic, in April 2007.The 15 revised full papers presented together with edited transcriptions of some of the discussions following the presentations have passed through multiple rounds of reviewing, revision, and selection. The topics addressed reflect the question "When is a Protocol Broken?" and how can it degrade gracefully in the face of partially broken assumptions, or how can it work under un(der)specified assumptions.

This book constitutes the thoroughly refereed post-proceedings of the 15th International Workshop on Security Protocols, held in Brno, Czech Republic, in April 2007.The 15 revised full papers presented together with edited transcriptions of some of the discussions following the presentations have passed through multiple rounds of reviewing, revision, and selection. The topics addressed reflect the question "When is a Protocol Broken?" and how can it degrade gracefully in the face of partially broken assumptions, or how can it work under un(der)specified assumptions.

This book constitutes the thoroughly refereed post-proceedings of the 17th International Workshop on Security Protocols, SP 2009, held in Cambridge, UK, in April 2009. The 17 revised full papers presented together with edited transcriptions of some of the discussions following the presentations have gone through multiple rounds of reviewing, revision, and selection. The theme of this workshop was "Brief Encounters". In the old days, security protocols were typically run first as preliminaries to, and later to maintain, relatively stable continuing relationships between relatively unchanging individual entities. Pervasive computing, e-bay and second life have shifted the ground: we now frequently desire a secure commitment to a particular community of entities, but relatively transient relationships with individual members of it, and we are often more interested in validating attributes than identity. The papers and discussions in this volume examine the theme from the standpoint of various different applications and adversaries.