skip to main content
10.1145/1377836.1377856acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessacmatConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A general obligation model and continuity: enhanced policy enforcement engine for usage control

Published:11 June 2008Publication History

ABSTRACT

The usage control model (UCON) has been proposed to augment traditional access control models by integrating authorizations, obligations, and conditions and providing the properties of decision continuity and attribute mutability. Several recent work have applied UCON to support security requirements in different computing environments such as resource sharing in collaborative computing systems and data control in remote platforms. In this paper we identify two individual but interrelated problems of the original UCON model and recent implementations: oversimplifying the concept of usage session of the model, and the lack of comprehensive ongoing enforcement mechanism of implementations. We extend the core UCON model with continuous usage sessions thus extensively augment the expressiveness of obligations in UCON, and then propose a general, continuity-enhanced and configurable usage control enforcement engine. Finally we explain how our approach can satisfy flexible security requirements with an implemented prototype for a healthcare information system.

References

  1. {ACF}ITU-T Rec X.812 (1995) | ISO/IEC 10181-3:1996. Security frameworks for open systems: Access control framework. Technical report, 1996.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. B. Agreiter, M. Alam, R. Breu, M. Hafner, A. Pretschner, J.-P. Seifert, and X. Zhang. A technical architecture for enforcing usage control requirements in service-oriented architectures. In Proc. ACM workshop on Secure web services, 2007.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. M. Alam, M. Hafner, M. Memon, and P. Hung. Modeling and enforcing advanced access control policies in healthcare systems with sectet. Mothis, 2007.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. C. Bettini, S. Jajodia, X. SeanWang, and D. Wijesekera. Provisions and obligations in policy rule management. J. Network and System Mgmt., 2003.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. C. Bettini, S. Jajodia, X. Sean Wang, and D. Wijesekera. Obligation monitoring in policy management. IEEE 3rd Intern. Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks, 2002.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. C. Bettini, S. Jajodia, X. Sean Wang, and D. Wijesekera. Provisions and obligations in policy management and security applications. In Proc. of the 28th VLDB Conference ,Hong Kong, China, 2002.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. N. Damianou, N. Dulay, E. Lupu, and M. Sloman. The ponder policy specification language. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2001.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. P. Gama and P. Ferreira. Obligation policies: An enforcement platform. In Sixth IEEE International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks, 2005.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. P. Gama, C. Ribeiro, and P. Ferreira. A scalable history-based policy engine. In Seventh IEEE International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks, 2006.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. M. Hafner, R. Mair, R. Breu, B. Agreiter, S. Unterthiner, and T. Schabetsberger. Health@net. Die verteilte elektronische gesundheitsakte- eine fallstudie in modell-getriebenem security engineering. IT-Sicherheitskongress des BSI, 2007.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. M. Hilty, D. Basin, and A. Pretschner. On obligations. In Proc. of European Symposium on Research in Computer Security, 2005.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. M. Hilty, A. Pretschner, D. Basin, C. Schaefer, and T. Walter. A policy language for distributed usage control. In Proc. of the 12th European Symposium on Research in Computer Security, 2007.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Keith Irwin, Ting Yu, and William H. Winsborogh. On the modeling and analysis of obligations. In Proc. of ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2006.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. J. Park and R. Sandhu. The ucon abc usage control model. ACM Transactions of Information and System Security, 7(1):128--174, 2004.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. J. Park and R. Sandhu. Towards usage control models: Beyond traditional access control. In Proc. of ACM symposium on Access control models and technologies, 2002.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. J. Park, X. Zhang, and R. S. Sandhu. Attribute mutability in usage control. In Proc. of the Annual IFIP WG 11.3 Working Conference on Data and Applications Security,, 2004.]]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. A. Pretschner, M. Hilty, and D. Basin. Distributed usage control. Communication of the ACM , 49(9):39--44, 2006.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. A. Pretschner, M. Hilty, F. Casati, and F. Massacci. Usage control in service-oriented architecture. In Proc. of the 4th Intl. Conf. on Trust, Privacy & Security in Digital Business, 2007.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. C. Ribeiro, A. Zuquete, P. Ferreira, and P. Guede. Spl: An access control language for security policies with complex constraints. In Proc. of the Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, 2001.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. R. Sailer, T. Jaeger, X. Zhang, and L. van Doorn. Attestation based policy enforcement for remote access. ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2004.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. R. Sailer, X. Zhang, T. Jaeger, and L. van Doorn. Design and implementation of tcg based integrity measurement systems. In Proc. of the 13th conference on USENIX Security, 2004.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. R. Sandhu and J. Park. Usage control: A vision for the next generation access control. Inter. Workshop on Mathematical Methods,Models and Architectures for Computer Networks Security, 2003.]]Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. R. Sandhu, K. Ranganathan, and X. Zhang. Secure information sharing enabled by trusted computing and pei models. In Proc. of ACM Symposium on Information, computer and communications security, 2006.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. R. Sandhu and X. Zhang. Peer-to-peer access control architecture using trusted computing technology. In Proc. of ACM symposium on Access control models and technologies, 2005.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. S. Unterthiner, M. Hafner, R.Breu, and T. Schabetsberger. Endpoint security in elga architekturen. eHealth-Medical Informatics meets eHealth. Vienna, 2007.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. G. Vogt. Multiple authoriztion- a model and architecture for increased, practical security. In Proc. of IFIP/IEEE Symposium on Integrated Network Management, 2003.]]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. G. Yee, L. Korba, and R. Song. Ensuring privacy for e-health services. In Proc. of The First International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, 2006.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. X. Zhang, M. Nakae, M. J. Convington, and R. Sandhu. A usage-based authorization framework for collaborative computing systems. In Proc. of ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies, 2006.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. X. Zhang, F. Parisi-Presicce, R. Sandhu, and J. Park. Formal model and policy specification of usage control. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security, 8(4):351--387, 2005.]] Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A general obligation model and continuity: enhanced policy enforcement engine for usage control

        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
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          SACMAT '08: Proceedings of the 13th ACM symposium on Access control models and technologies
          June 2008
          214 pages
          ISBN:9781605581293
          DOI:10.1145/1377836

          Copyright © 2008 ACM

          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]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 11 June 2008

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate177of597submissions,30%

          Upcoming Conference

          SACMAT 2024

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader