skip to main content
article

Specification and verification of security requirements in a programming model for decentralized CSCW systems

Published:01 May 2007Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We present, in this paper, a role-based model for programming distributed CSCW systems. This model supports specification of dynamic security and coordination requirements in such systems. We also present here a model-checking methodology for verifying the security properties of a design expressed in this model. The verification methodology presented here is used to ensure correctness and consistency of a design specification. It is also used to ensure that sensitive security requirements cannot be violated when policy enforcement functions are distributed among the participants. Several aspect-specific verification models are developed to check security properties, such as task-flow constraints, information flow, confidentiality, and assignment of administrative privileges.

References

  1. Ahmed, T. 2004. Policy-Based Design of Secure Distributed Collaboration Systems. Ph.D. thesis, University of Minnesota. Available at http://www.cs.umn.edu/Ajanta/publications.html. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Ahmed, T. and Tripathi, A. R. 2003. Static verification of security requirements in role based CSCW systems. In Proceedings of 8th ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies (SACMAT 2003). ACM, New York. 196--203. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Ahn, G.-J. and Sandhu, R. 2000. Role-based authorization constraints specification. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security 3, 4 (Nov.), 207--226. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Atluri, V. and Huang, W.-K. 1996. An authorization model for workflows. In Proceedings of the Fourth European Symposium on Research in Computer Security. Springer-Verlag LNCS Volume 1146, London, UK, 44--64. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Bacon, J., Moody, K., and Yao, W. 2002. A model of OASIS role-based access control and its support for active security. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security 5, 4 (Nov.), 492--540. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Bertino, E., Ferrari, E., and Atluri, V. 1999. The specification and enforcement of authorization constraints in workflow management systems. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security 2, 1 (Feb.), 65--104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Bertino, E., Bonatti, P. A., and Ferrari, E. 2001. TRBAC: A temporal role-based access control model. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security 4, 3 (Aug.), 191--223. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Bhatti, R., Ghafoor, A., Bertino, E., and Joshi, J. 2005. X-GTRBAC: An XML-based policy specification framework and architecture for enterprise-wide access control. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security 8, 2 (May), 187--227. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Campbell, R. H. and Habermann, A. N. 1974. The specification of process synchronization by path expressions. In Operating Systems, International Symposium, Rocquencourt. Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol.16, Springer Verlag, London, UK. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Corts, M. and Mishra, P. 1996. DCWPL: A programming language for describing collaborative work. In Proceedings of CSCW'96. ACM, New York. 21--29. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Crampton, J. 2003. Specifying and enforcing constraints in role-based access control. In Proceedings of 8th ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies (SACMAT 2003). ACM, New York. 43--50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Crampton, J. 2004. An algebraic approach to the analysis of constrained workflow systems. In Proceedings of 3rd Workshop on Foundations of Computer Security. 61--74.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Crampton, J. and Loizou, G. 2003. Administrative scope: A foundation for role-based administrative models. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security 6, 2 (May), 201--231. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Demurjian, S., Ting, T., and Thuraisingham, B. 1993. User-role based security for collaborative computing environments. Multimedia Review 4, 2 (Summer), 40--47.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Eshuis, R. and Wieringa, R. 2002. Verification support for workflow design with UML activity graphs. In Proceedings of International Conference on Software Engineering. ACM, New York. 166--176. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Giuri, L. and Iglio, P. 1997. Role templates for content-based access control. In Proceedings of the Second ACM Workshop on Role-Based Access Control. ACM, New York. 153--159. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Greif, I. and Sarin, S. 1987. Data sharing in group work. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 5, 2, 187--211. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Hansen, F. and Oleshchuk, V. A. 2005. Conformance checking of RBAC policy and its implementation. In First Information Security Practice and Experience Conference (ISPEC 2005). 144--155. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Holzmann, G. J. 2003. SPIN Model Checker, The: Primer and Reference Manual. Addison Wesley Professional, New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Huang, W.-K. and Atluri, V. 1999. SecureFlow: A secure web-enabled workflow management system. In ACM Workshop on Role-Based Access Control. ACM, New York. 83--94. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Jaeger, T. and Tidswell, J. E. 2001. Practical safety in flexible access control models. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security 4, 2 (May), 158--190. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Jajodia, S., Samarati, P., and Subrahmanian, V. S. 1997. A logical language for expressing authorizations. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA. 31--42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Janssen, W., Mateescu, R., Mauw, S., and Springintveld, J. 1998. Verifying business processes using Spin. In Proceedings of 4th International SPIN Workshop.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Koch, M., Mancini, L. V., and Parisi-Presicce, F. 2002. A graph-based formalism for RBAC. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security 5, 3 (Aug.), 332--365. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Kotonya, G. and Sommerville, I. 1998. Requirements Engineering: Processes and Techniques. Wiley, New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Li, D. and Muntz, R. 1998. COCA: Collaborative objects coordination architecture. In Proceedings of CSCW'98. ACM, New York. 179--188. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Li, N., Mitchell, J. C., and Winsborough, W. H. 2002. Design of a role-based trust management framework. In Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA. 114--130. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Li, N., Winsborough, W. H., and Mitchell, J. 2003. Beyond proof-of-compliance: Safety and availability analysis in trust management. In Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA. 123--139. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Lupu, E. C. and Sloman, M. 1997. Reconciling role-based management and role-based access control. In ACM Workshop on Role-based Access Control. ACM, New York. 135--141. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Maggi, P. and Sisto, R. 2002. Using SPIN to verify security protocols. In Proceedings of 9th Int. SPIN Workshop on Model Checking of Software, LNCS 2318. 187--204. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Myers, A. C. and Liskov, B. 2000. Protecting privacy using the decentralized label model. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 9, 4, 410--442. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Nyanchama, M. and Osborn, S. 1999. The role graph model and conflict of interest. ACM Transaction on Information System Security 2, 1 (Feb.), 3--33. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Oh, S. and Sandhu, R. 2002. A model for role administration using organization structure. In ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies. ACM, New York. 155--162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Osborn, S. L. 2002. Information flow analysis of an RBAC system. In ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies. ACM, New York. 163--168. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Reiter, M. and Gong, L. 1995. Securing causal relationships in distributed systems. The Computer Journal 38, 8, 633--642.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Roberts, P. and Verjus, J.-P. 1977. Towards autonomous descriptions of synchronization modules. In Proceedings of IFIP Congress. North-Holland, Amsterdam. 981--986.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Sampemane, G., Naldurg, P., and Campbell, R. H. 2002. Access control for active spaces. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference. 343--352. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Sandhu, R. S. 1988. Transaction control expressions for separation of duties. In Fourth Annual Computer Security Application Conference. 282--286.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Sandhu, R., Bhamidipati, V., and Munawer, Q. 1999. The ARBAC97 model for role-based administration of roles. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security 2, 1 (Feb.), 105--135. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Sandhu, R., Coyne, E., Feinstein, H., and Youman, C. 1996. Role-based access control models. IEEE Computer 29, 2 (Feb.), 38--47. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Sandhu, R., Ferraiolo, D., and Kuhn, R. 2000. The NIST model for role-based access control: towards a unified standard. In Proceedings of the Fifth ACM Workshop on Role-Based Access Control. ACM, New York. 47--63. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Simon, R. and Zurko, M. 1997. Separation of duty in role-based environments. In 10th Computer Security Foundations Workshop. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA. 183--194. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Thomas, R. K. 1997. Team-based access control (TMAC): A primitive for applying role-based access controls in collaborative environments. In ACM Workshop on Role-based Access Control. ACM, New York. 13--19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Tripathi, A., Ahmed, T., Kumar, R., and Jaman, S. 2002. Design of a policy-driven middleware for secure distributed collaboration. In Proceedings of International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems 2002. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA. 393--400. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Tripathi, A., Ahmed, T., and Kumar, R. 2003. Specification of secure distributed collaboration systems. In IEEE International Symposium on Autonomous Distributed Systems. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA. 149--156. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Zakinthinos, A. and Lee, E. 1997. A general theory of security properties. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA. 94--102. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Specification and verification of security requirements in a programming model for decentralized CSCW systems

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in

            Full Access

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader