The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A hierarchy of authentication specifications
Abstract
Many security protocols have the aim of authenticating one agent to another. Yet there is no clear consensus in the academic literature about precisely what "authentication" means. We suggest that the appropriate authentication requirement will depend upon the use to which the protocol is put, and identify several possible definitions of "authentication". We formalize each definition using the process algebra CSP, use this formalism to study their relative strengths, and show how the model checker FDR can be used to test whether a system running the protocol meets such a specification.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Communicating Sequential Processes
Hoare, T. (1985) · Cited by 9,016
Using encryption for authentication in large networks of computers
Needham, R. M., & Schroeder, M. D. (1978) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/359657.359659 · Cited by 2,362
Communicating sequential processes
(1986) · Microprocessors and Microsystems · doi:10.1016/0141-9331(86)90196-1 · Cited by 2,167
Authentication and authenticated key exchanges
Diffie, W., Van Oorschot, P. C., & Wiener, M. J. (1992) · Designs, Codes and Cryptography · doi:10.1007/bf00124891 · Cited by 1,154
Breaking and fixing the Needham-Schroeder Public-Key Protocol using FDR
Lowe, G. (1996) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/3-540-61042-1_43 · Cited by 872
Self-citationTimestamps in key distribution protocols
Denning, D. E., & Sacco, G. M. (1981) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/358722.358740 · Cited by 682
An attack on the Needham-Schroeder public-key authentication protocol
Lowe, G. (1995) · Information Processing Letters · doi:10.1016/0020-0190(95)00144-2 · Cited by 647
Self-citationBurrows, M., Abadi, M., & Needham, R. (1989) · Proceedings of the twelfth ACM symposium on Operating systems principles · doi:10.1145/74850.74852 · Cited by 641
Breaking and Fixing the Needham-Schroeder Public-Key Protocol using FDR
Lowe, G. (1996) · Cited by 582
Self-citationCasper: a compiler for the analysis of security protocols
Lowe, G. (2002) · Proceedings 10th Computer Security Foundations Workshop · doi:10.1109/csfw.1997.596779 · Cited by 305
Self-citation
Cited by
Casper: a compiler for the analysis of security protocols
Lowe, G. (2002) · Proceedings 10th Computer Security Foundations Workshop · doi:10.1109/csfw.1997.596779 · Cited by 305
Self-citationThe Modelling and Analysis of Security Protocols: the CSP Approach
Ryan, P. Y. A., Schneider, S. A., Goldsmith, M., Lowe, G., & Roscoe, A. (2001) · doi:10.25405/ncl.34123404 · Cited by 269
Self-citationA Trustworthy Privacy Preserving Framework for Machine Learning in Industrial IoT Systems
Arachchige, P. C. M., Bertok, P., Khalil, I., Liu, D., Camtepe, S., & Atiquzzaman, M. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics · doi:10.1109/tii.2020.2974555 · Cited by 236
A modular correctness proof of IEEE 802.11i and TLS
He, C., Sundararajan, M., Datta, A., Derek, A., & Mitchell, J. C. (2005) · Proceedings of the 12th ACM conference on Computer and communications security · doi:10.1145/1102120.1102124 · Cited by 121
Towards formal verification of IoT protocols: A Review
Hofer-Schmitz, K., & Stojanović, B. (2020) · Computer Networks · doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2020.107233 · Cited by 104
Metadata
- Authors
- Lowe, G.
- Venue
- Proceedings 10th Computer Security Foundations Workshop
- Publisher
- IEEE Comput. Soc. Press
- Published
- 2002-11-22
- Pages
- 31-43
- OpenAlex
- W2145415641
- Cited by
- 630
- References
- 14
- FWCI
- 21.69
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A hierarchy of authentication specifications. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/csfw.1997.596782
- The paper
- Lowe, G. (2002). A hierarchy of authentication specifications. Proceedings 10th Computer Security Foundations Workshop. https://doi.org/10.1109/csfw.1997.596782
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
