skip to main content
10.1145/1180405.1180423acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

On the modeling and analysis of obligations

Published: 30 October 2006 Publication History

Abstract

Traditional security policies largely focus on access control requirements, which specify who can access what under what circumstances. Besides access control requirements, the availability of services in many applications often further imposes obligation requirements, which specify what actions have to be taken by a subject in the future as a condition of getting certain privileges at present. However, it is not clear yet what the implications of obligation policies are concerning the security goals of a system.In this paper, we propose a formal metamodel that captures the key aspects of a system that are relevant to obligation management. We formally investigate the interpretation of security policies from the perspective of obligations, and define secure system states based on the concept of accountability. We also study the complexity of checking a state's accountability under different assumptions about a system.

References

[1]
R. J. Anderson. A security policy model for clinical information systems. In Proc. IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 30--43, 1996.]]
[2]
E. Bertino, F. Buccafurri, E. Ferrari, and P. Rullo. A logical framework for reasoning on data access control policies. In Proc. 12th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop, pages 175--189, 1999.]]
[3]
E. Bertino, S. Castano, and E. Ferrari. On specifying security policies for web documents with an XML-based language. In Proc. 6th ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies, Chantilly, VA, May 2001.]]
[4]
C. Bettini, S. Jajodia, X. S. Wang, and D. Wijesekera. Provisions and obligations in policy management and security applications. In VLDB, Hong Kong, China, Aug. 2002.]]
[5]
C. Bettini, S. Jajodia, X. S. Wang, and D. Wijesekera. Obligation monitoring in policy management. In IEEE International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks (POLICY 2003), Lake Como, Italy, June 2003.]]
[6]
C. Bettini, S. Jajodia, X. S. Wang, and D. Wijesekera. Provisions and obligations in policy rule management. J. Network Syst. Manage., 11(3), 2003.]]
[7]
M. Blaze, J. Feigenbaum, and M. Strauss. Compliance Checking in the PolicyMaker Trust Management System. In Financial Cryptography, British West Indies, Feb. 1998.]]
[8]
C. Bussler and S. Jablonski. Policy resolution for workflow management systems. In Proc. Hawaii International Conference on System Science, Maui, Hawaii, January 1995.]]
[9]
D. Damianou, N. Dulay, E. Lupu, and M. Sloman. The Ponder Policy Specification Language. In 2nd International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks, Bristol, UK, Jan. 2001.]]
[10]
N. Damianou, N. Dulay, E. Lupu, and M. Sloman. The ponder policy specification language. In Proc. International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks, pages 18--38, 2001.]]
[11]
B. S. Firozabadi, M. Sergot, A. Squicciarini, and E. Bertino. A framework for contractual resource sharing in coalitions. In 5th IEEE International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks (POLICY 2004, Yorktown Heights, New York, June 2004.]]
[12]
P. Gama and P. Ferreira. Obligation policies: An enforcement platform. In 6th IEEE International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks (POLICY 2005), Stockholm, Sweden, June 2005.]]
[13]
P. Griffiths and B. Wade. An authorization mechanism for a relational database systems. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 1(3), 1976.]]
[14]
M. A. Harrison, W. L. Ruzzo, and J. D. Ullman. Protection in operating systems. Communications of the ACM, 19(8):461--471, Aug. 1976.]]
[15]
IBM. Enterprise Privacy Authorization Language (EPAL 1.1) Specification. http://www.zurich.ibm.com/security/enterprise-privacy/epal/.]]
[16]
K. Irwin, T. Yu, and W. Winsborough. On the modeling and analysis of obligations. Technical Report NCSU CS TR 2006-26, North Carolina State University, 2006. ftp://ftp.ncsu.edu/pub/unity/lockers/ftp/csc_anon/tech/2006/TR-2006-26.%.pdf.]]
[17]
S. Jajodia, P. Samarati, and V. S. Subrahmanian. A logical language for expressing authorizations. In Proc. 1997 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 31--42, 1997.]]
[18]
S. Jajodia, P. Samarati, V. S. Subrahmanian, and E. Bertino. A unified framework for enforcing multiple access control policies. In Proc. ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 474--485, 1997.]]
[19]
L. Kagal, T. W. Finin, and A. Joshi. A policy language for a pervasive computing environment. In IEEE International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks (POLICY 2003), Lake Como, Italy, June 2003.]]
[20]
H. Kamoda, M. Yamaoka, S. Matsuda, K. Broda, and M. Sloman. Policy conflict analysis using free variable tableaux for access control in web services environments. In Policy Management for the Web Workshop, Chiba, Japan, May 2005.]]
[21]
M. Kudo and S. Hada. XML document security based on provisional authorization. In Proc. ACM Conference on Computer and Communication Security, Athens, Greece, November 2000.]]
[22]
N. Li, W. H. Winsborough, and J. C. Mitchell. Beyond proof-of-compliance: Safety and availability analysis in trust management. In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 123--139. IEEE Computer Society Press, May 2003.]]
[23]
T. Ryutov and C. Neuman. Representation and evaluation of security policies for distributed system services. In Proc. DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition, January 2000.]]
[24]
M. Sailer and M. Morciniec. Monitoring and execution for contract compliance. Technical Report TR 2001-261, HP Labs, 2001.]]
[25]
R. Sandhu, V. Bhamidipati, and Q. Munawer. The ARBAC97 model for role-based aministration of roles. ACM Transactions on Information and Systems Security, 2(1):105--135, Feb. 1999.]]
[26]
R. S. Sandhu. The Schematic Protection Model: Its definition and analysis for acyclic attenuating systems. Journal of ACM, 35(2):404--432, 1988.]]
[27]
E. Sirer and K. Wang. An access control language for web services. In Proc. 7th ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies, Monterey, CA, June 2002.]]
[28]
X. TC. Oasis extensible access control markup language (xacml). http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xacml/.]]
[29]
A. Uszok, J. M. Bradshaw, R. Jeffers, N. Suri, P. J. Hayes, M. R. Breedy, L. Bunch, M. Johnson, S. Kulkarni, and J. Lott. Kaos policy and domain services: Toward a description-logic approach to policy representation, deconfliction, and enforcement. In IEEE International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks (POLICY 2003), Lake Como, Italy, June 2003.]]
[30]
OASIS eXtensible Access Control Markup Language (XACML). http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xacml/, 2005.]]

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)Detecting Errors in NGAC Policies via Fault-Based TestingIEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing10.1109/TDSC.2024.339518722:1(263-278)Online publication date: Jan-2025
  • (2025)Managing Obligation DelegationSecurity and Privacy10.1002/spy2.4898:1Online publication date: 12-Jan-2025
  • (2023)Dynamic Access Control with Administrative Obligations: A Case Study2023 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability, and Security Companion (QRS-C)10.1109/QRS-C60940.2023.00071(157-166)Online publication date: 22-Oct-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
CCS '06: Proceedings of the 13th ACM conference on Computer and communications security
October 2006
434 pages
ISBN:1595935185
DOI:10.1145/1180405
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 30 October 2006

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. obligations
  2. policy

Qualifiers

  • Article

Conference

CCS06
Sponsor:
CCS06: 13th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security 2006
October 30 - November 3, 2006
Virginia, Alexandria, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 1,261 of 6,999 submissions, 18%

Upcoming Conference

CCS '25

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)7
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 17 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)Detecting Errors in NGAC Policies via Fault-Based TestingIEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing10.1109/TDSC.2024.339518722:1(263-278)Online publication date: Jan-2025
  • (2025)Managing Obligation DelegationSecurity and Privacy10.1002/spy2.4898:1Online publication date: 12-Jan-2025
  • (2023)Dynamic Access Control with Administrative Obligations: A Case Study2023 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability, and Security Companion (QRS-C)10.1109/QRS-C60940.2023.00071(157-166)Online publication date: 22-Oct-2023
  • (2023)SMT-Based Verification of NGAC Policies2023 IEEE 47th Annual Computers, Software, and Applications Conference (COMPSAC)10.1109/COMPSAC57700.2023.00115(860-869)Online publication date: Jun-2023
  • (2023)Attribute-based encryption with enforceable obligationsJournal of Cryptographic Engineering10.1007/s13389-023-00317-113:3(343-371)Online publication date: 29-Apr-2023
  • (2023)An Incentive Mechanism for Managing Obligation DelegationRisks and Security of Internet and Systems10.1007/978-3-031-31108-6_15(191-206)Online publication date: 14-May-2023
  • (2022)Risk Reduction Privacy Preserving Approach for Accessing Electronic Health RecordsResearch Anthology on Securing Medical Systems and Records10.4018/978-1-6684-6311-6.ch045(942-954)Online publication date: 3-Jun-2022
  • (2022)Automated GDPR Contract Compliance Verification Using Knowledge GraphsInformation10.3390/info1310044713:10(447)Online publication date: 24-Sep-2022
  • (2021)OACAL: Finding Module-consistent Specifications to Secure Systems from Weakened User Obligations2021 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI)10.1109/SSCI50451.2021.9660106(1-9)Online publication date: 5-Dec-2021
  • (2019)ExpatProceedings of the 24th ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies10.1145/3322431.3325107(61-72)Online publication date: 28-May-2019
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media