Formal Security Analysis Using RoR Model Sample Clauses

Formal Security Analysis Using RoR Model tion, the USP computes Ci+1 = h(Ci ||Rx ), Rx = h(IDu ||Rx ) ⊕ Rx∗ , and R = h(IDu ||R ) ⊕ R . According to the RoR model, an attacker A interacts Finally, the USP replaces {PIDu, (Ci , Ri , Ri )} with with the t-th participant instance Πt. Following the proposed h i scenario (as shown in Table II). In our proof, we use a scheme, we define the UAV’s and the USP’s instances by U and S, receptively. The RoR model uses Execute, Send, Reveal, CorruptDevice, and Test queries to simulate an attack guesses the random bit c in game i . The advantage of the adversary to win the game can then be represented as Adv AKE = Pr SuccGi . The proof, following the model in collision resistant one-way hash function h( ) (a pseudo- random function), and a secure ideal PUF function P as random oracles.
View Source
Formal Security Analysis Using RoR Model tion, the USP computes Ci+1 = h(Ci ||Rx ), Rx = h(IDu ||Rx ) ⊕ Rx∗ , and R = h(IDu ||R ) ⊕ R . According to the RoR model, an attacker A interacts Finally, the USP replaces {PIDu, (Ci , Ri , Ri )} with with the t-th participant instance Πt. Following the proposed scheme, we define the UAV’s and the USP’s instances by U and S, receptively. The RoR model uses Execute, Send, Adv AKE = Pr ΣSuccGi Σ. The proof, following the model in Reveal, CorruptDevice, and Test queries to simulate an attack scenario (as shown in Table II). In our proof, we use a collision resistant one-way hash function h( ) (a pseudo- random function), and a secure ideal PUF function P as random oracles.
View Source

Related to Formal Security Analysis Using RoR Model

  • CONTRACT EXHIBIT I PREFERRED PRICING AFFIDAVIT This preferred-pricing affidavit is entered into in accordance with section 216.0113, F.S., and as required by Contract No. 80101507-21-STC-ITSA (“Contract”) between (“Contractor”) and the Department of Management Services. As the person authorized by Contractor to sign this affidavit, I attest that the Contractor is in full compliance with the preferred-pricing clause of the Contract. Contractor’s Name: By: Signature Printed Name/Title Date: STATE OF COUNTY OF Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me this day of , by Vendor Name: FEIN# Vendor’s Authorized Representative Name and Title: Address: City, State, and Zip code: Phone Number: ( ) - E-mail: CORPORATE SEAL (IF APPLICABLE) (Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned Name of Notary Public) [Check One] Personally Known OR Produced the following I.D.

  • Attachment  C_ CONTRACT AFFIRMATIONS For purposes of these Contract Affirmations, HHS includes both the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) and the Department of State Health Services (DSHS). System Agency refers to HHSC, DSHS, or both, that will be a party to this Contract. These Contract Affirmations apply to all Contractors and Grantees (referred to as “Contractor”) regardless of their business form (e.g., individual, partnership, corporation). By entering into this Contract, Contractor affirms, without exception, understands, and agrees to comply with the following items through the life of the Contract:

  • DESCRIPTION OF CONTRACT MODIFICATION This contract modification is made in accordance with Exhibit E-Revised-1, Contractual Terms and Conditions, Section 22. CHANGES, to be made part hereof for all pertinent purposes. The changes are as follows:

  • STATE’S ABILITY TO MODIFY SCOPE OF CONTRACT Subject to mutual agreement between the parties, Enterprise Services reserves the right to modify the Services included in this Contract; Provided, however, that any such modification shall be effective only upon thirty (30) calendar days advance written notice; and Provided further, that any such modification must be within the scope of the Competitive Solicitation for this Contract.

  • Particular Methods of Procurement of Goods and Works International Competitive Bidding. Goods and works shall be procured under contracts awarded on the basis of International Competitive Bidding.