Papers › Bridging the Gap: Automated Analysis of Sancus
Bridging the Gap: Automated Analysis of Sancus
Matteo Busi, Riccardo Focardi, Flaminia Luccio
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Techniques for verifying or invalidating the security of computer systems have come a long way in recent years. Extremely sophisticated tools are available to specify and formally verify the behavior of a system and, at the same time, attack techniques have evolved to the point of questioning the possibility of obtaining adequate levels of security, especially in critical applications. In a recent paper, Bognar et al. have clearly highlighted this inconsistency between the two worlds: on one side, formal verification allows writing irrefutable proofs of the security of a system, on the other side concrete attacks make these proofs waver, exhibiting a gap between models and implementations which is very complex to bridge. In this paper, we propose a new method to reduce this gap in the Sancus embedded security architecture, by exploiting some peculiarities of both approaches. Our technique first extracts a behavioral model by directly interacting with the real Sancus system and then analyzes it to identify attacks and anomalies. Given a threat model, our method either finds attacks in the given threat model or gives probabilistic guarantees on the security of the system. We implement our method and use it to systematically rediscover known attacks and uncover new ones.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections