Editing Burrows–Abadi–Needham logic (section)

== Alternatives and criticism ==
BAN logic inspired many other similar formalisms, such as [[Gong–Needham–Yahalom logic|GNY logic]]. Some of these try to repair one weakness of BAN logic: the lack of a good semantics with a clear meaning in terms of knowledge and possible universes. However, starting in the mid-1990s, crypto protocols were analyzed in operational models (assuming perfect cryptography) using model checkers, and numerous bugs were found in protocols that were "verified" with BAN logic and related formalisms. {{citation needed|reason=What bugs? Which protocols?|date=November 2015}} In some cases a protocol was reasoned as secure by the BAN analysis but were in fact insecure.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Boyd |first1=Colin |last2=Mao |first2=Wenbo |chapter=On a limitation of BAN logic |date=1994 |chapter-url=http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=188350  |title=EUROCRYPT '93: Workshop on the theory and application of cryptographic techniques on Advances in cryptology |pages=240–247 |isbn=9783540576006 |access-date=2016-10-12 }}</ref> This has led to the abandonment of BAN-family logics in favor of proof methods based on standard invariance reasoning. {{Citation needed|date=January 2017}}