Last Updated: July 2020
Welcome Robert Sison
I am pleased to announce that Robert Sison, who just submitted his PhD thesis at UNSW,
has joined as a postdoc, to work on the Time Protection project, a collaboration with Data61
and UNSW to prove that the seL4 kernel
can defend against timing channels. Rob brings with him a wealth of experience in
verified information flow security. During his PhD he developed the COVERN Compiler, which was the first verified
compiler proved to preserve information flow security for concurrent programs, besides
VERONICA: Open Source Release and Paper at CSF 2020
Many secure systems intentionally leak information. Proving them secure therefore means proving that they leak only the information they should leak, and only at the right
times. Proving so-called secure declassification policies is a known challenging task and until very recently we have had no satisfactory methods for doing so for concurrent programs. I am therefore pleased to announce, in collaboration with Andrei Sabelfeld and Daniel Schoepe of Chalmers University of Technology, the open source release of VERONICA, which embodies a new formal approach for proving such policies for concurrent programs. VERONICA achieves a radical increase in precision and expressiveness over previous approaches, by utilising a new technique we developed called Decoupled Functional Correctness and is implemented and proved sound from first principles in the Isabelle theorem prover.
You can learn more about VERONICA in our paper recently published at the 2020 IEEE
Computer Security Foundations Symposium (CSF).
This work is part of the ongoing COVERN project that I lead, which focuses on methods for proving the security of concurrent programs.
Legion partakes in Test-Comp 2020
My excellent PhD student Dongge Liu has been developing a new tool Legion,
for automatically generating test cases for programs, that generalises traditional
concolic testing and fuzzing. Legion orchestrates program exploration via Monte-Carlo
Tree Search. Legion recently took place in the 2nd Competition on Software Testing (Test-Comp 2020), which is a fantastic achievement for Dongge and his efforts over
the past year of his PhD. Further details about Legion are forthcoming in a future paper.
However, in the meantime you can get a sneak peek by reading our
competition contribution short paper,
which appeared at FASE 2020.
Welcome Mukesh Tiwari
I am a Senior Lecturer in the School of Computing and Information Systems of the University of Melbourne. Prior to joining Melbourne in May 2016,
I was employed in the Software Systems
Research Group of NICTA (now Data61), and was a Conjoint Senior Lecturer in the school of
Computer Science and Engineering of
UNSW. I joined NICTA and UNSW in 2010 from
Oxford, where I completed a D.Phil. (PhD) in Computer Science, awarded in 2011.
Before moving to Oxford, I worked for the
Defence Science and Technology Organisation after my undergraduate study
at the University of Adelaide.
I live in Melbourne with my wife and two children, enjoy (and sometimes write and
record) alternative music,
and spend too much time on Twitter
engaging a hot-cold obsession with Australian politics, security and privacy.
I love great ales, informed by my days in Oxford, and rich reds, like any Adelaide
Research and Collaborations
Note: the following is a historical snapshot of my research. See the
News Archive page for a more up-to-date
My research is focused on the problem of how to build highly secure computing
systems cost-effectively. As part of this,
I lead Data61's work on proving computer software and
systems secure, and am leading or otherwise involved in a number of projects as part of
Data61's Trustworthy Systems
activity, as detailed on my Data61 page. Below are listed my current active areas of research and collaboration.
My interest in security, and belief about the best ways to build secure systems
more effectively, is very broad. Thus
I tend to collaborate across various
disciplines including Software Engineering, Systems, Hardware Security,
Programming Languages and Human Factors.
Information Flow One of the biggest challenges faced in security today
is how to ensure that computer systems can keep their secrets from well-motivated
adversaries — just think of how many news stories you've read about personal
information having been stolen and publicised by attackers. For this reason,
a large part of my research has investigated how to guarantee the absence of unwanted
information leaks in computer software and systems. I led the team that completed
the world's first proof [IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy ("Oakland" S&P) 2013 ]
of information flow security for a general-purpose operating
system kernel, seL4, which you can read more about on the
project page. This proof, along with subsequent work, guarantees that seL4 will
prevent all unwanted information leaks up to timing channels, i.e. that it is
free of unwanted storage channels.
My current work in this space aims to understand how to verify information
flow security for concurrent programs (like those that run on top of seL4),
and how to compile such programs while making sure they still preserve their
security guarantees. This work is being carried out under the banner of the
open-source COVERN project [IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P) 2018 ], which builds on
our earlier work for exploring these questions [IEEE Computer Security Foundations Symposium (CSF) 2016 ].
Alongisde this work, I've also been exploring how to build program logics for proving information flow
security of low-level C code. A recent short paper [Workshop on Programming Languages and Analysis for Security (PLAS) 2017 ] describes the main ideas, developed in
collaboration with Samuel Gruetter (MIT).
Timing Channels Timing channels
leak information (whether intentionally or not) to an adversary who can
observe differences in the relative timing of different events.
Unlike for storage channels, we are not yet
able to prove the absence of timing channels in systems, largely because many
timing channels exploit the timing properties of hardware microarchitectural
features, like caches, which are not even documented, so are very difficult
to reason about formally. For this reason, these channels must be dealt with empirically.
I have been involved in NICTA's Timing and Side Channels activity, where we pioneered new techniques for
empirically measuring the effectiveness of various timing channel mitigation
techniques for seL4 [ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) 2014 ].
Cost-Effective Verified Systems via Verifying DSLs While security proofs, like
for seL4 that I have led, can give extremely high levels of assurance for
security-critical systems, they remain relatively expensive to perform. Much of
my recent research has therefore focused on how to reduce the cost of verifying
properties of systems software. One technique I have explored, in collaboration with
Programming Languages researchers from UNSW (notably Gabi Keller) via NICTA's
Cogent project, has been to write verified systems software in a Domain
Specific Language (DSL). Cogent [International Conference on Functional Programming (ICFP) 2016 ] is a programming language that is carefully designed to enable systems written in it to be
cheaply proved correct. It is coupled with a verifying compiler [International Conference on Interactive Theorem Proving (ITP) 2016 ] that automatically
proves that the compiled code implements the Cogent source semantics.
In conjunction with my PhD students Sidney Amani and Liam O'Connor
(co-supervised with Gabi Keller), my undergraduate thesis student
Japheth Lim, and the rest of the Cogent team,
we have used this technique to
build and (partially) formally verify correct Linux file systems far more cheaply
than e.g. the verification for the seL4 kernel [International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS) 2016 ].
Proof Cost Estimation The effort required to verify software
as being secure is an obvious barrier to its wide adoption. But just as
important is the inability of software engineering managers to be able to
predict the costs (and associated benefits) of proving their software
correct. Another of my recent research activities has been to investigate this
question in the context of NICTA's Proof, Measurement and Estimation (PME) project. As part of this work,
my PhD student Daniel Matichuk and I, in collaboration with Empirical Software Engineering researchers
and NICTA's PME team, explored the relationship between the size of a statement to
be proved about a piece of software, and the amount of effort required to prove
the statement (using as a proxy the number of lines required to write the proof,
which we had already established [ACM/IEEE Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM) 2014 ]
is strongly linearly related).
To do so, we crunched historical data
about the various seL4 proofs as well
as some other large, publicly available software proofs. We
established empirically for the first time [International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) 2015 ] that a consistent relationship exists here
and that it is in fact quadratic. This work is the first step towards building
a predictive model for estimating the level of effort required to verify a piece of
Proof Automation Besides writing verified software in custom DSLs
leveraging verifying compilation to dramatically ease the cost of formally verifying
secure systems, another more direct approach I have investigated with my PhD
student Daniel Matichuk has been to develop languages in which custom, automatic proof tactics can be written for the Isabelle proof assistant. Daniel designed and developed Eisbach [International Conference on Interactive Theorem Proving (ITP) 2014 , Journal of Automated Reasoning (to appear)] the first such language that integrates with Isabelle's high-level
notation for writing (structured) proofs, and so requires no knowledge of Isabelle's
internals, making it usable by relative novices.
Highly-Secure and Usable, Verified Cross Domain Systems All of
the above research is aimed towards being able to build extremely secure
systems — and to demonstrate via rigorous evidence that they are indeed
so — at reasonable cost. I am currently leading, alongside Kevin Elphinstone, a collaboration with the
Defence Science and Technology Group (DST Group), in which we are building and formally verifying as secure a
device called the Cross Domain Desktop Compositor (CDDC)
[Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC) 2016 ].
The CDDC allows users to interact with both highly-classified and lower-classification networks from a single display (monitor), keyboard and mouse.
Its design makes it far more secure than existing solutions
while also offering much greater usability, showing that with clever design
usability and security need not be in conflict. We are currently working on
building and verifying an seL4-based implementation of the device,
leveraging our current work on verified
information flow security.
Usable Security As part of my work on building and verifying
cross domain systems, I am
also investigating how issues of usability and security, including human cognition
and perception, interact with the process of formally proving a system secure.
This work is still in its very early stages
[Australian Computer Human Interaction Conference
(OzCHI) 2018 ], and there
remains much more to be done.
Reasoning about Capability-Based Software
Continuing the work I began during my D.Phil. (PhD), where I investigated
[thesis ] techniques
to formally reason about the security of capability-based security-enforcing software abstractions,
I am currently collaborating with
researchers from Imperial College London, Victoria University Wellington and Google on techniques for formally reasoning about risk and trust (including the absence of such) for capability-based
Working with Me
I'm always looking for motivated students to work with. Check out my page for
prospective research students
has a fairly complete list of my publications. You can also try my entry on
, which may not
be quite so complete.
Software and Artifacts
My group has developed various pieces of software, plus formal
artifacts embedded in interactive theorem provers such as program logics and compilers.
All are available under open source licenses.
SecC: Verified Security for Concurrent C Programs
SecC is the first autoactive program verifier able to verify information flow security
for concurrent C programs.
More Information ->
Legion: Principled Automatic Test Case Generation
Legion automatically generates test cases for programs, generalising traditional
concolic testing and fuzzing, orchestrating program exploration via Monte-Carlo
More Information ->
VERONICA: Verified Secure Declassification for Concurrent Programs
VERONICA is a verification method, embedded in the Isabelle/HOL theorem prover, for verifying secure declassification policies for concurrent programs.
More Information ->
COVERN Compiler: Verified Secure Compilation for Concurrent Programs
The COVERN Compiler is a proof-of-concept compiler embedded in the Isabelle/HOL theorem prover that provably preserves information flow security when compiling concurrent programs.
More Information ->
COVERN Logic: Verified Security for Concurrent Programs
The COVERN logic, embedded in the Isabelle/HOL theorem prover, allows one to prove that concurrent programs do not leak sensitive information.
More Information ->
In 2020, I am teaching:
At UNSW, I taught:
- COMP4161 - Advanced Topics in Software Verification (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 as Lecturer in Charge, 2015)
- COMP9241 - Advanced Operating Systems (Guest lecturer in Operating Systems Security, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015)
I have also taught half-day courses to industry on topics including:
- Separation Logic
- Software Model Checking for C code using
If your company develops
software and would like to know how you can more easily detect and remove bugs
during development, and would like to know more, please get in touch.