A key feature in trusted computing is attestation, which allows encapsulated components (enclaves) to prove their identity to (local or remote) distrusting components. Reasoning about software that uses the technique requires tracking how trust evolves after successful attestation. This process is security-critical and non-trivial, but no existing formal verification technique supports modular reasoning about attestation of enclaves and their clients, or proving end-to-end properties for systems combining trusted, untrusted and attested code. We contribute Cerisier, the first program logic for modular reasoning about trusted, untrusted and attested code, fully mechanized in the Iris separation logic and the Rocq Prover. We formalize a recent proposal, CHERI-TrEE, to extend capability machines with enclave primitives, as an extension to the Cerise capability machine and program logic. Our program logic comes with a universal contract for untrusted code, which captures both capability safety and local enclave attestation. Like Cerise, this universal contract is phrased in terms of a logical relation defining capabilities' authority. We demonstrate Cerisier by proving end-to-end properties for three representative applications of trusted computing: secure outsourced computation, mutual attestation and a modeled trusted sensor component.

Type inference is essential for statically-typed languages such as OCaml and Haskell. It can be decomposed into two (possibly interleaved) phases: a generator converts programs to constraints; a solver decides whether a constraint is satisfiable. Elaboration, the task of decorating a program with explicit type annotations, can also be structured in this way. Unfortunately, most machine-checked implementations of type inference do not follow this phase-separated, constraint-based approach. Those that do are rarely executable, lack effectful abstractions, and do not include elaboration. To close the gap between common practice in real-world implementations and mechanizations inside proof assistants, we propose an approach that enables modular reasoning about monadic constraint generation in the presence of elaboration. Our approach includes a domain-specific base logic for reasoning about metavariables and a program logic that allows us to reason abstractly about the meaning of constraints. To evaluate it, we report on a machine-checked implementation of our techniques inside the Coq proof assistant. As a case study, we verify both soundness and completeness for three elaborating type inferencers for the simply typed λ -calculus with Booleans. Our results are the first demonstration that type inference algorithms can be verified in the same form as they are implemented in practice: in an imperative style, modularly decomposed into constraint generation and solving, and delivering elaborated terms to the remainder of the compiler chain.

Progress has recently been made on specifying instruction set architectures (ISAs) in executable formalisms rather than through prose. However, to date, those formal specifications are limited to the functional aspects of the ISA and do not cover its security guarantees. We present a novel, general method for formally specifying an ISA's security guarantees to (1) balance the needs of ISA implementations (hardware) and clients (software), (2) can be semi-automatically verified to hold for the ISA operational semantics, producing a high-assurance mechanically-verifiable proof, and (3) support informal and formal reasoning about security-critical software in the presence of adversarial code. Our method leverages universal contracts: software contracts that express bounds on the authority of arbitrary untrusted code. Universal contracts can be kept agnostic of software abstractions, and strike the right balance between requiring sufficient detail for reasoning about software and preserving implementation freedom of ISA designers and CPU implementers. We semi-automatically verify universal contracts against Sail implementations of ISA semantics using our Katamaran tool; a semi-automatic separation logic verifier for Sail which produces machine-checked proofs for successfully verified contracts. We demonstrate the generality of our method by applying it to two ISAs that offer very different security primitives: (1) MinimalCaps: a custom-built capability machine ISA and (2) a (somewhat simplified) version of RISC-V with PMP. We verify a femtokernel using the security guarantee we have formalized for RISC-V with PMP.

Verifying soundness of symbolic execution-based program verifiers is a significant challenge. This is especially true if the resulting tool needs to be usable outside of the proof assistant, in which case we cannot rely on shallowly embedded assertion logics and meta-programming. The tool needs to manipulate deeply embedded assertions, and it is crucial for efficiency to eagerly prune unreachable paths and simplify intermediate assertions in a way that can be justified towards the soundness proof. Only a few such tools exist in the literature, and their soundness proofs are intricate and hard to generalize or reuse. We contribute a novel, systematic approach for the construction and soundness proof of such a symbolic execution-based verifier. We first implement a shallow verification condition generator as an object language interpreter in a specification monad, using an abstract interface featuring angelic and demonic nondeterminism. Next, we build a symbolic executor by implementing a similar interpreter, in a symbolic specification monad. This symbolic monad lives in a universe that is Kripke-indexed by variables in scope and a path condition. Finally, we reduce the soundness of the symbolic execution to the soundness of the shallow execution by relating both executors using a Kripke logical relation. We report on the practical application of these techniques in Katamaran, a tool for verifying security guarantees offered by instruction set architectures (ISAs). The tool is fully verified by combining our symbolic execution machinery with a soundness proof of the shallow verification conditions against an axiomatized separation logic, and an Iris-based implementation of the axioms, proven sound against the operational semantics. Based on our experience with Katamaran, we can report good results on practicality and efficiency of the tool, demonstrating practical viability of our symbolic execution approach.

A compiler is fully-abstract if the compilation from source language programs to target language programs reflects and preserves behavioural equivalence. Such compilers have important security benefits, as they limit the power of an attacker interacting with the program in the target language to that of an attacker interacting with the program in the source language. Proving compiler full-abstraction is, however, rather complicated. A common proof technique is based on the back-translation of target-level program contexts to behaviourally-equivalent source-level contexts. However, constructing such a back- translation is problematic when the source language is not strong enough to embed an encoding of the target language. For instance, when compiling from STLC to ULC, the lack of recursive types in the former prevents such a back-translation. We propose a general and elegant solution for this problem. The key insight is that it suffices to construct an approximate back-translation. The approximation is only accurate up to a certain number of steps and conservative beyond that, in the sense that the context generated by the back-translation may diverge when the original would not, but not vice versa. Based on this insight, we describe a general technique for proving compiler full-abstraction and demonstrate it on a compiler from STLC to ULC. The proof uses asymmetric cross-language logical relations and makes innovative use of step-indexing to express the relation between a context and its approximate back-translation. The proof extends easily to common compiler patterns such as modular compilation and it, to the best of our knowledge, it is the first compiler full abstraction proof to have been fully mechanised in Coq. We believe this proof technique can scale to challenging settings and enable simpler, more scalable proofs of compiler full-abstraction.

This paper presents 3MT, a framework for modular mechanized meta-theory of languages with effects. Using 3MT, individual language features and their corresponding definitions -- semantic functions, theorem statements and proofs-- can be built separately and then reused to create different languages with fully mechanized meta-theory. 3MT combines modular datatypes and monads to define denotational semantics with effects on a per-feature basis, without fixing the particular set of effects or language constructs.