Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Symposium on Engineering Secure Software and Systems

ESSoS 2011: Engineering Secure Software and Systems pp 73–86Cite as

Predictability of Enforcement

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNSC,volume 6542))

Abstract

The current theory of runtime enforcement is based on two properties for evaluating an enforcement mechanism: soundness and transparency. Soundness defines that the output is always good (“no bad traces slip out”) and transparency defines that good input is not changed (“no surprises on good traces”). However, in practical applications it is also important to specify how bad traces are fixed so that the system exhibits a reasonable behavior. We propose a new notion of predictability which can be defined in the same spirit of continuity in real-functions calculus. It defines that there are “no surprises on bad input”. We discuss this idea based on the feedback of an industrial case study on e-Health.

We would like to thank Marta Zambetti, Marco Nalin, Andrea Micheletti and Daniela Marino from the Hospital San Raffaele for many useful discussions that helped to shape our proposal. This work has been partly supported by the EU under the projects EU-IP-MASTER, EU-FET-IP-SecureChange and EU-NoE-NESSoS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Pontryagin, L.S., Arkhangel’skii, A.V. (eds.): General topology I: basic concepts and constructions, dimension theory. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Bauer, L., Ligatti, J., Walker, D.: Edit automata: Enforcement mechanisms for run-time security policies. Int. J. of Inform. Sec. 4(1-2), 2–16 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bielova, N., Massacci, F., Micheletti, A.: Towards practical enforcement theories. In: Jøsang, A., Maseng, T., Knapskog, S.J. (eds.) NordSec 2009. LNCS, vol. 5838, pp. 239–254. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Brown, A., Ryan, M.: Synthesising monitors from high-level policies for the safe execution of untrusted software. In: Chen, L., Mu, Y., Susilo, W. (eds.) ISPEC 2008. LNCS, vol. 4991, pp. 233–247. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Chatterjee, K., Doyen, L., Henzinger, T.A.: Expressiveness and closure properties for quantitative languages. Comp. Research Repository, abs/1007.4018 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cohn, D.L.: Measure Theory. Birkhauser, Basel (1980)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Desmet, L., Joosen, W., Massacci, F., Philippaerts, P., Piessens, F., Siahaan, I., Vanoverberghe, D.: Security-by-contract on the .net platform. Information Security Technical Report 13(1), 25–32 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Erlingsson, U.: The Inlined Reference Monitor Approach to Security Policy Enforcement. PhD thesis, Cornell University (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Falcone, Y., Fernandez, J.-C., Mounier, L.: Enforcement monitoring wrt. the safety-progress classification of properties. In: Proc. of 24th ACM Symp. on Applied Computing – Software Verif. and Test. Track, pp. 593–600. ACM Press, New York (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gheorghe, G., Neuhaus, S., Crispo, B.: xESB: An enterprise service bus for access and usage control policy enforcement. In: IFIPTM 2010. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol. 321, pp. 63–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Khoury, R., Tawbi, N.: Using Equivalence Relations for Corrective Enforcement of Security Policies. In: Kotenko, I., Skormin, V. (eds.) MMM-ACNS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6258, pp. 139–154. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Levenshtein, V.I.: Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady 10(8), 707–710 (1966); An English translation of the “Physics Sections” of the Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Ligatti, J., Bauer, L., Walker, D.: Run-time enforcement of nonsafety policies. ACM Trans. on Inform. and Sys. Security 12(3), 1–41 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ligatti, J., Reddy, S.: A theory of runtime enforcement, with results. In: Gritzalis, D., Preneel, B., Theoharidou, M. (eds.) ESORICS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6345, pp. 87–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Matthews, S.G.: Partial metric topology. In: Proceedings of the 8th Summer Conference, Queen’s College, vol. 728, pp. 183–197. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Park, J., Sandhu, R.: The UCON ABC usage control model. ACM Trans. on Inform. and Sys. Security 7(1), 128–174 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Phung, P.H., Sands, D., Chudnov, A.: Lightweight self-protecting javascript. In: Proc. of ACM Symp. on Inform., Comp. and Comm. Security, pp. 47–60. ACM Press, New York (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Pretschner, A., Hilty, M., Basin, D., Schaefer, C., Walter, T.: Mechanisms for usage control. In: Proc. of ACM Symp. on Inform. Comp. and Comm. Security, pp. 240–244. ACM Press, New York (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Schneider, F.B.: Enforceable security policies. ACM Trans. on Inform. and Sys. Security 3(1), 30–50 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Talhi, C., Tawbi, N., Debbabi, M.: Execution monitoring enforcement under memory-limitation constraints. Inform. and Comp. 206(2-4), 158–184 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Yun, D., Chander, A., Islam, N., Serikov, I.: Javascript instrumentation for browser security. In: Proc. of the 34th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symp. on Princ. of Prog. Lang., pp. 237–249. ACM Press, New York (2007)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Trento, Italy

    Nataliia Bielova & Fabio Massacci

Authors
  1. Nataliia Bielova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fabio Massacci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Google Inc., 1288 Pear Ave, 94043, Mountain View, CA, USA

    Úlfar Erlingsson

  2. Computer Science Department, University of Twente, Drienerlolaan 5, 7522 NB, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Roel Wieringa

  3. Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Eindhoven University of Technology, Den Dolech 2, 5612 AZ, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Nicola Zannone

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Bielova, N., Massacci, F. (2011). Predictability of Enforcement. In: Erlingsson, Ú., Wieringa, R., Zannone, N. (eds) Engineering Secure Software and Systems. ESSoS 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6542. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19125-1_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19125-1_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-19124-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-19125-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation