![typestatus alternative typestatus alternative](https://www.hyperoffice.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/image-7.png)
184–198 (2000)ĭas, M., Lerner, S., Seigle, M.: ESP: Path-Sensitive Program Verification in Polynomial Time. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pp. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Ĭrary, K., Weirich, S.: Resource bound certification. In: Barringer, H., Falcone, Y., Finkbeiner, B., Havelund, K., Lee, I., Pace, G., Roşu, G., Sokolsky, O., Tillmann, N. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)īodden, E., Lam, P., Hendren, L.: Clara: A Framework for Partially Evaluating Finite-State Runtime Monitors Ahead of Time.
Typestatus alternative software#
ACM (2007)īeyer, D., Keremoglu, M.E.: cPAchecker: A tool for configurable software verification. ACM (2012)īeyer, D., Henzinger, T.A., Majumdar, R., Rybalchenko, A.: Path invariants. In: Tracz, W., Robillard, M.P., Bultan, T. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)īeyer, D., Henzinger, T.A., Keremoglu, M.E., Wendler, P.: Conditional model checking: a technique to pass information between verifiers. 189–197 (2010)īeyer, D., Chlipala, A.J., Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R.: The Blast query language for software verification. 117–119 (2003)īeyer, D., Keremoglu, M., Wendler, P.: Predicate Abstraction with Adjustable-Block Encoding. In: Proceedings of the 3rd DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition, DISCEX (2), pp. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)īauer, L., Schneider, M.A., Felten, E.W., Appel, A.W.: Access control on the web using proof-carrying authorization. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)īall, T., Rajamani, S.K.: Automatically validating temporal safety properties of interfaces. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.īall, T., Podelski, A., Rajamani, S.K.: Boolean and Cartesian Abstraction for Model Checking C Programs. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. Experimental results show that the proof effort can be reduced by several orders of magnitude, both with respect to time and space. Code consumers thus still do proving themselves, however, on a computationally inexpensive level only.
![typestatus alternative typestatus alternative](http://home.ubalt.edu/abento/ntfaq/iis11.gif)
It keeps the idea of putting the time consuming part of proving on the side of the code producer, however, attaches no proofs to code anymore but instead uses the proof to transform the program into an equivalent but more efficiently verifiable program. In this paper we introduce a new concept for safe execution of untrusted code. Depending on the type of safety property, proofs can however become quite large and their validation - though faster than their construction - still time consuming. Proof-carrying code approaches aim at safe execution of untrusted code by having the code producer attach a safety proof to the code which the code consumer only has to validate.