K vs. Coq as Language Verification Frameworks (Part 3 of 3)

Musab A. Alturki and Brandon Moore

This is the third and last part of the “K vs. Coq as Language Verification Frameworks” post series. After illustrating how the syntactic structures of a language are defined (Part 1), and how its semantics can be defined and tested (Part 2) in both K and Coq, we now describe how the third step in the verification workflow, which is specifying and verifying correctness properties, can be achieved. We use the same working example SUM and assume all the language definitions of IMP and SUM described in the previous parts.

Continue reading

K vs. Coq as Language Verification Frameworks (Part 2 of 3)

Musab A. Alturki and Brandon Moore

In Part 1 of this post, we began by generally introducing the steps needed to verify the correctness of programs in a language verification framework, such as K and Coq. We then described how the first step, defining language syntax and program structure, can be accomplished in both K and Coq for our working example program SUM in the language IMP, highlighting the main differences between the two frameworks.

In this second part of the post, we build on the definitions introduced in the previous part and describe how the semantics of the language and testing the semantics, the second step in the process, can be achieved in K and Coq using the same example SUM. Part 3 of the series explains how the third step (specifying and verifying properties) can be done.

Continue reading

K vs. Coq as Language Verification Frameworks (Part 1 of 3)

Musab A. Alturki and Brandon Moore

Formally verifying programs, like verifying smart contracts in blockchain systems or verifying airplane flight controllers in embedded devices, is a powerful technique for assuring correctness and increasing reliability of systems. In this context, the question of “Why use K as opposed to Coq?” seems to come up quite often when discussing K with colleagues who may not be familiar with K, but have heard about or used Coq before. In this series of posts, we make an attempt at highlighting some of the important ways in which K and Coq differ as formal verification frameworks for languages through a working example. We hope to convey to the reader why we believe K is more suitable in this context. Before we continue, we’d like to note that we have extensive experience with Coq, both as users and as library/framework developers.

Continue reading

A Formal Model in K of the Beacon Chain: Ethereum 2.0’s Primary Proof-of-Stake Blockchain

Musab A. Alturki, Denis Bogdanas, Chris Hathhorn and Daejun Park

With the upcoming major update to version 2.0 (code-named Serenity), Ethereum is transitioning into a sharded, proof-of-stake (PoS) consensus mechanism. It brings better energy-efficiency, security and scalability. The specific PoS protocol of Ethereum 2.0 is known as the Beacon Chain.

We are happy to report the first milestone in an ongoing collaboration between Runtime Verification and Ethereum Foundation, to build a formal framework for modeling and verifying the Beacon Chain. We have completed the executable formal model of Beacon Chain in the K Framework. The K specification, along with the technical report describing this work, are both available online.

So what’s the Beacon Chain? How was its model in K developed? Why is this development important?

Continue reading

Formally Verifying Algorand: Reinforcing a Chain of Steel (Modeling and Safety)

Musab A. Alturki, Brandon Moore, Karl Palmskog and Lucas Pena

Earlier this year, Runtime Verification was engaged by Algorand to verify its consensus protocol. We are happy to report that the first part of the effort, namely modeling the protocol and proving its safety theorem, has been successfully completed. Specifically, we have used a proof assistant (Coq) to systematically identify assumptions under which the protocol is mathematically guaranteed to not fork.

Continue reading