Diego Marmsoler

Smart contracts are programs stored on the blockchain, often developed in a high-level programming language, the most popular of which is Solidity. Smart contracts are used to automate financial transactions and thus bugs can lead to large financial losses. With this paper, we address this problem by describing a verification environment for Solidity in Isabelle/HOL. To this end, we first describe a calculus to reason about Solidity smart contracts. The calculus is formalized in Isabelle/HOL and its soundness is mechanically verified. Then, we verify a theorem which guarantees that all instances of an arbitrary contract type satisfy a corresponding invariant. The theorem can be used to verify invariants for Solidity smart contracts. This is demonstrated by a case study in which we use our approach to verify a simple token implemented in Solidity. Our results show that the framework has the potential to significantly reduce the verification effort compared to verifying directly from the semantics.

Smart contracts are computer programs designed to automate legal agreements. They are usually developed in a high-level programming language, the most popular of which is Solidity. Every day, hundreds of thousands of new contracts are deployed managing millions of dollars’ worth of transactions. As for every computer program, smart contracts may contain bugs which can be exploited. However, since smart contracts are often used to automate financial transactions, such exploits may result in huge economic losses. In general, it is estimated that since 2019, more than $5B was stolen due to vulnerabilities in smart contracts. This paper addresses the issue of smart contract vulnerabilities by introducing an executable denotational semantics for Solidity within the Isabelle/HOL interactive theorem prover. This formal semantics serves as the basis for an interactive program verification environment for Solidity smart contracts. To evaluate our semantics, we integrate grammar-based fuzzing with symbolic execution to automatically test it against the Solidity reference implementation. The paper concludes by showcasing the formal verification of Solidity programs, exemplified through the verification of a basic Solidity token.

With the emergence of mobile and adaptive computing, dynamic architectures have become increasingly important. In such architectures, components may appear or disappear, and connections between them may change over time. Dynamic architectures are usually specified in terms of two separate specifications: a specification of component behavior and a specification of component activation and reconfiguration. To verify them, both specifications are first interpreted over a common model for dynamic architectures and verified against a property specified over the same model. Interpreting the specifications over the model, however, introduce repetitive proof steps, which increase the length of proofs, and thus the effort to develop and maintain them. To address this problem, we developed a calculus for dynamic architectures providing rules to reason about component behavior in a dynamic environment. We proved soundness and relative completeness of the rules, implemented them in the interactive theorem prover Isabelle, and mechanized the corresponding soundness proofs. The calculus can be used to support the abstract verification of dynamic architectures in Isabelle. This is demonstrated by means of a running example and evaluated in terms of four case studies. Our results suggest that the calculus has the potential to reduce the length of proofs for the verification of dynamic architectures, thus reducing the effort to develop and maintain verification results.

Architectural design patterns (ADPs) are architectural solutions to common architectural design problems. They are an important concept in software architectures used for the design and analysis of architectures. An ADP usually constrains the design of an architecture and, in turn, guarantees some desired properties for architectures implementing it. Sometimes, however, the constraints imposed by an ADP do not lead to the claimed guarantee. Thus, applying such patterns for the design of architectures might result in architectures which do not fulfill their intended requirements. To address this problem, we propose an approach for the verification of ADPs, based on interactive theorem proving. To this end, we introduce a model for dynamic architectures and a language for the specification of ADPs over this model. Moreover, we propose a framework for the interactive verification of such specifications based on Isabelle/HOL. In addition we describe an algorithm to map a specifi cation to a corresponding Isabelle/HOL theory over our framework. To evaluate the approach, we implement it in Eclipse/EMF and use it for the verification of four ADPs: variants of the Singleton, the Publisher-Subscriber, the Blackboard pattern, and a pattern for Blockchain architectures. With our approach we complement traditional approaches for the verification of architectures, which are usually based on automatic verification techniques such as model checking.

Smart contracts are programs stored on the blockchain, often developed in a high-level programming language, the most popular of which is Solidity. Smart contracts are used to automate financial transactions and thus bugs can lead to large financial losses. With this paper, we address this problem by describing a verification environment for Solidity in Isabelle/HOL. To this end, we first describe a calculus to reason about Solidity smart contracts. The calculus is formalized in Isabelle/HOL and its soundness is mechanically verified. Then, we describe a Verification Condition Generator to automate the use of the calculus. Our approach can be used to verify the functional correctness of Solidity smart contracts. To demonstrate this, we use it to verify a simple token implemented in Solidity. Our results show that the framework has the potential to significantly reduce the verification effort compared to verifying directly from the semantics.