Proof-carrying code is a framework for the mechanical verification of safety properties of machine language programs, but the problem arises of quis custodiat ipsos custodes---who will verify the verifier itself? Foundational proof-carrying code is verification from the smallest possible set of axioms, using the simplest possible verifier and the smallest possible runtime system. I will describe many of the mathematical and engineering problems to be solved in the construction of a foundational proof-carrying code system.

We have designed and implemented a general and powerful distributed authentication framework based on higher-order logic. Authentication frameworks --- including Taos, SPKI, SDSI, and X.509 --- have been explained using logic. We show that by starting with the logic, we can implement these frameworks, all in the same concise and efficient system. Because our logic has no decision procedure --- although proof checking is simple --- users of the framework must submit proofs with their requests.

Proof-carrying code is a framework for proving the safety of machine-language programs with a machinecheckable proof. Such proofs have previously defined type-checking rules as part of the logic. We show a universal type framework for proof-carrying code that will allow a code producer to choose a programming language, prove the type rules for that language as lemmas in higher-order logic, then use those lemmas to prove the safety of a particular program. We show how to handle traversal, allocation, and initialization of values in a wide variety of types, including functions, records, unions, existentials, and covariant recursive types. 1

The proofs of "traditional" proof carrying code (PCC) are type-specialized in the sense that they require axioms about a specific type system. In contrast, the proofs of foundational PCC explicitly define all required types and explicitly prove all the required properties of those types assuming only a fixed foundation of mathematics such as higher-order logic. Foundational PCC is both more flexible and more secure than type-specialized PCC.

Decidability of definitional equality and conversion of terms into canonical form play a central role in the meta-theory of a type-theoretic logical framework. Most studies of definitional equality are based on a confluent, strongly-normalizing notion of reduction. Coquand has considered a different approach, directly proving the correctness of a practical equivalence algorithm based on the shape of terms. Neither approach appears to scale well to richer languages with unit types or subtyping, and neither directly addresses the problem of conversion to canonical form.

This paper explores a new point in the design space of formal reasoning systems - part programming language, part logical framework. The system is built on a programming language where the user expresses equality constraints between types and the type checker then enforces these constraints. This simple extension to the type system allows the programmer to describe properties of his program in the types of witness objects which can be thought of as concrete evidence that the program has the property desired. These techniques and two other rich typing mechanisms, rank-N polymorphism and extensible kinds, create a powerful new programming idiom for writing programs whose types enforce semantic properties. A language with these features is both a practical programming language and a logic. This marriage between two previously separate entities increases the probability that users will apply formal methods to their programming designs. This kind of synthesis creates the foundations for the languages of the future.

Machine-checked proofs of properties of programming languages have become a critical need, both for increased confidence in large and complex designs and as a foundation for technologies such as proof-carrying code. However, constructing these proofs remains a black art, involving many choices in the formulation of definitions and theorems that make a huge cumulative difference in the difficulty of carrying out large formal developments. The representation and manipulation of terms with variable binding is a key issue. We propose a novel style for formalizing metatheory, combining locally nameless representation of terms and cofinite quantification of free variable names in inductive definitions of relations on terms (typing, reduction,...). The key technical insight is that our use of cofinite quantification obviates the need for reasoning about equivariance (the fact that free names can be renamed in derivations); in particular, the structural induction principles of relations

We develop an explicit two level system that allows programmers to reason about the behavior of effectful programs. The first level is an ordinary ML-style type system, which confers standard properties on program behavior. The second level is a conservative extension of the first that uses a logic of type refinements to check more precise properties of program behavior. Our logic is a fragment of intuitionistic linear logic, which gives programmers the ability to reason locally about changes of program state. We provide a generic resource semantics for our logic as well as a sound, decidable, syntactic refinement-checking system. We also prove that refinements give rise to an optimization principle for programs. Finally, we illustrate the power of our system through a number of examples.

Proof-carrying code (PCC) is a framework for mechanically verifying the safety of machine language programs. A program that is successfully verified by a PCC system is guaranteed to be safe to execute, but this safety guarantee is contingent upon the correctness of various trusted components. For instance, in traditional PCC systems the trusted computing base includes a large set of low-level typing rules. Foundational PCC systems seek to minimize the size of the trusted computing base. In particular, they eliminate the need to trust complex, low-level type systems by providing machine-checkable proofs of type soundness for real machine languages. In this thesis, I demonstrate the use of logical relations for proving the soundness of type systems for mutable state. Specifically, I focus on type systems that ensure the safe allocation, update, and reuse of memory. For each type in the language, I define logical relations that explain the meaning of the type in terms of the oper-ational semantics of the language. Using this model of types, I prove each typing rule as a lemma. The major contribution is a model of System F with general references — that is, mutable cells that can hold values of any closed type including other references, functions, recursive types, and impredicative quantified types. The model is based on ideas from both possible worlds and the indexed model of Appel and McAllester. I show how the model of mutable references is encoded in higher-order logic. I also show how to construct an indexed possible-worlds model for a von Neumann machine. The latter is used in the Princeton Foundational PCC system to prove type safety for a full-fledged low-level typed assembly language. Finally, I present a semantic model for a region calculus that supports type-invariant references as well as memory reuse. iii

We present a foundational language for distributed programming, called Lambda 5, that addresses both mobilityof code and locality of resources. In order to construct our system, we appeal to the powerful propositions-as-types interpretation of logic. Specifically, we take the possible worlds of the intuitionistic modal logic IS5 to be nodes ona network, and the connectives 2 and 3 to reflect mobility and locality, respectively. We formulate a novel systemof natural deduction for IS5, decomposing the introduction and elimination rules for 2 and 3, thereby allowing thecorresponding programs to be more direct. We then give an operational semantics to our calculus that is type-safe, logically faithful, and computationally realistic.