arXiv subjects

Samarth Kishor

Publications and source records attributed to Samarth Kishor.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Soundness Checking of Taint Flow Models

Existing state-of-the-art static taint flow analyses for imperative programming languages can scale to large applications by using precise user-provided taint flow models of library methods. However, manually and precisely modeling a method's taint flows is tedious and potentially unsound. Furthermore, automatically modeling the method via an inter- procedural taint analysis can be inefficient. To solve this problem, we propose a guess-and-check approach: (1) an LLM agent that generates a precise taint flow model of a method and (2) a symbolic algorithm to check the soundness of the model. The algorithm deduces which taint flows must not occur in the method for the LLM's taint flow model to be sound, and uses lightweight static analyses (e.g., type system and pointer analysis) to prove these must-not-flows. When these analyses are insufficient, the algorithm deduces maximally-general callee models and recursively verifies their soundness, avoiding a full inter-procedural taint analysis in most cases. Since a more precise model requires fewer must-not-flows to be verified, the precision of the LLM's model directly determines the efficiency of our approach. We evaluate our approach on 97 LLM-generated taint flow models for methods in 6 large Go codebases and prove the models sound for 93% of the methods they cover. The proven-sound LLM-generated models are also precise, resulting in no new false-positives when proving taint flow properties.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

The Secrets Must Not Flow: Scaling Security Verification to Large Codebases (extended version)

Existing program verifiers can prove advanced properties about security protocol implementations, but are difficult to scale to large codebases because of the manual effort required. We develop a novel methodology called *Diodon* that addresses this challenge by splitting the codebase into the protocol implementation (the *Core*) and the remainder (the *Application*). This split allows us to apply powerful semi-automated verification techniques to the security-critical Core, while fully-automatic static analyses scale the verification to the entire codebase by ensuring that the Application cannot invalidate the security properties proved for the Core. The static analyses achieve that by proving *I/O independence*, i.e., that the I/O operations within the Application are independent of the Core's security-relevant data (such as keys), and that the Application meets the Core's requirements. We have proved Diodon sound by first showing that we can safely allow the Application to perform I/O independent of the security protocol, and second that manual verification and static analyses soundly compose. We evaluate Diodon on two case studies: an implementation of the signed Diffie-Hellman key exchange and a large (100k+ LoC) production Go codebase implementing a key exchange protocol for which we obtained secrecy and injective agreement guarantees by verifying a Core of about 1% of the code with the auto-active program verifier Gobra in less than three person months.

cs.CR↗