Understanding the Usability of Cryptographic Verification Tools
Survey of Tamarin and ProVerif users reveals usability barriers: debugging non-termination, model validation, and opaque proof failures hinder cryptographic protocol verification.
The paper presents an exploratory human-centered survey of researchers, graduate students, and practitioners with hands-on experience using Tamarin, ProVerif, and related cryptographic protocol verification tools. Findings reveal usability barriers across the verification workflow, including difficulties debugging non-termination and performance issues plus the lack of systematic methods for validating formal models against real protocols. When proofs fail without concrete attacks, users commonly simplify models, add helper lemmas, and revisit modeling abstractions. Participants called for actionable diagnostics, clearer explanations of results, visualization, and automation for recurring proof tasks.
- Survey covers experienced Tamarin and ProVerif users
- Main barriers: non-termination debugging, performance, model validation
- Users simplify models and add lemmas when proofs fail without attacks
- Design priorities: actionable diagnostics, explanations, visualization, automation
Full article161 words · extracted from arxiv.org · click to collapse
Cryptographic protocol verification tools are widely used to analyze the security of complex protocols, yet how users interact with these tools remains comparatively understudied. We present an exploratory human-centered study of experienced users of Tamarin, ProVerif, and related protocol verifiers. Our survey included researchers, graduate students, and practitioners with hands-on experience using Tamarin, ProVerif, or related tools. The findings reveal usability barriers across the verification workflow, including difficulties debugging non-termination and performance issues, and the lack of systematic methods for validating formal models against real protocols. When proofs fail without concrete attacks, users commonly simplify models, add helper lemmas, and revisit modeling abstractions. Participants also called for actionable diagnostics, clearer explanations of results, visualization, and automation for recurring proof tasks. Our findings suggest that persistent usability challenges arise from the gap between protocol-level reasoning and the verifier's formal model, proof procedures, and diagnostic output. We derive concrete design priorities for improving the accessibility, interpretability, and usability of cryptographic protocol verification tools.
Text extracted automatically; images, tables and formatting may be missing. Original: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.16323