skip to main content
10.1145/3427228.3427665acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesacsacConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Workflow Integration Alleviates Identity and Access Management in Serverless Computing

Authors Info & Claims
Published:08 December 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

As serverless computing continues to revolutionize the design and deployment of web services, it has become an increasingly attractive target to attackers. These adversaries are developing novel tactics for circumventing the ephemeral nature of serverless functions, exploiting container reuse optimizations and achieving lateral movement by “living off the land” provided by legitimate serverless workflows. Unfortunately, the traditional security controls currently offered by cloud providers are inadequate to counter these new threats.

In this work, we propose will.iam,1 a workflow-aware access control model and reference monitor that satisfies the functional requirements of the serverless computing paradigm. will.iam encodes the protection state of a serverless application as a permissions graph that describes the permissible transitions of its workflows, associating web requests with a permissions set at the point of ingress according to a graph-based labeling state. By proactively enforcing the permissions requirements of downstream workflow components, will.iam is able to avoid the costs of partially processing unauthorized requests and reduce the attack surface of the application. We implement the will.iam framework in Go and evaluate its performance as compared to recent related work against the well-established Nordstrom “Hello, Retail!” application. We demonstrate that will.iam imposes minimal burden to requests, averaging 0.51% overhead across representative workflows, but dramatically improves performance when handling unauthorized requests (e.g., DDoS attacks) as compared to past solutions. will.iam thus demonstrates an effective and practical alternative for authorization in the serverless paradigm.

References

  1. 2019. 21% of Open Source Serverless Apps Have Critical Vulnerabilities. https://www.puresec.io/blog/puresec-reveals-that-21-of-open-source-serverless-applications-have-critical-vulnerabilities.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2019. A Deep Dive into Serverless Attacks, SLS-1: Event Injection. https://www.protego.io/a-deep-dive-into-serverless-attacks-sls-1-event-injection/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 2019. Aqua Cloud Native Security Platform. https://www.aquasec.com/products/aqua-container-security-platform/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 2019. AWS Lambda Container Lifetime and Config Refresh. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/aws-lambda-container-lifetime-config-refresh-frederik-willaert/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 2019. CVE-2019-5736: runc container breakout. https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2019/02/11/2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. 2019. Event Injection: Protecting your Serverless Applications. https://www.jeremydaly.com/event-injection-protecting-your-serverless-applications/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. 2019. Function-as-a-Service Market by User Type (Developer-Centric and Operator-Centric), Application (Web & Mobile Based, Research & Academic), Service Type, Deployment Model, Organization Size, Industry Vertical, and Region - Global Forecast to 2021. https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/function-as-a-service-market-127202409.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. 2019. FunctionShield. https://www.puresec.io/function-shield.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. 2019. Gathering weak npm credentials. https://github.com/ChALkeR/notes/blob/master/Gathering-weak-npm-credentials.md.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. 2019. Hacking a Serverless Application: Demo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcN7wHuroVw.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. 2019. Intrinsic: Software security, re-invented.https://intrinsic.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. 2019. Lambda functions for rapid prototyping. https://developer.ibm.com/articles/cl-lambda-functions-rapid-prototyping/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. 2019. Many-faced threats to Serverless security. https://hackernoon.com/many-faced-threats-to-serverless-security-519e94d19dba.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. 2019. New Attack Vector - Serverless Crypto Mining. https://www.puresec.io/blog/new-attack-vector-serverless-crypto-mining.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. 2019. OWASP Serverless Top 10. https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Serverless_Top_10_Project.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. 2019. Protego Serverless Runtime Security. https://www.protego.io/platform/elastic-defense/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. 2019. Puresec Serverless Security Platform. https://www.puresec.io/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. 2019. ReDoS Vulnerability in ”AWS-Lambda-Multipart-Parser” Node Package. https://www.puresec.io/blog/redos-vulnerability-in-aws-lambda-multipart-parser-node-package.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. 2019. Securing Serverless: Attacking an AWS Account via a Lambda Function. https://www.darkreading.com/cloud/securing-serverless-attacking-an-aws-account-via-a-lambda-function/a/d-id/1333047.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. 2019. Securing Serverless – by Breaking in. https://www.infoq.com/presentations/serverless-security-2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. 2019. Serverless Security for AWS Lambda, Azure Functions, and Google Cloud Functions. https://www.twistlock.com/solutions/serverless-security-aws-lambda-azure-google-cloud/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. 2019. Snyk. https://snyk.io/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. 2019. Sysdig Secure. https://sysdig.com/products/secure/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. 2019. Vandium-node. https://github.com/vandium-io/vandium-node.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. 2020. AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM). https://aws.amazon.com/iam/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. 2020. AWS::Lambda::Function. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSCloudFormation/latest/UserGuide/aws-resource-lambda-function.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. 2020. Cloud Breach: Compromising AWS IAM Credentials. https://rhinosecuritylabs.com/aws/aws-iam-credentials-get-compromised/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. 2020. List of AWS S3 Leaks. https://github.com/nagwww/s3-leaksGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. 2020. Policy Evaluation Logic. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/IAM/latest/UserGuide/reference_policies_evaluation-logic.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. 2020. This Is What Happened When I Leaked My AWS Secret Key. https://alexanderpaterson.com/posts/this-is-what-happened-when-i-leaked-my-aws-secret-keyGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. 2020. What Is ABAC for AWS?https://docs.aws.amazon.com/IAM/latest/UserGuide/introduction_attribute-based-access-control.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. P. Aditya, I. E. Akkus, A. Beck, R. Chen, V. Hilt, I. Rimac, K. Satzke, and M. Stein. 2019. Will Serverless Computing Revolutionize NFV?Proc. IEEE 107, 4 (April 2019), 667–678. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2019.2898101Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Gojko Adzic and Robert Chatley. 2017. Serverless Computing: Economic and Architectural Impact. In Proceedings of the 2017 11th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (Paderborn, Germany) (ESEC/FSE 2017). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 884–889. https://doi.org/10.1145/3106237.3117767Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Istemi Ekin Akkus, Ruichuan Chen, Ivica Rimac, Manuel Stein, Klaus Satzke, Andre Beck, Paarijaat Aditya, and Volker Hilt. 2018. SAND: Towards High-Performance Serverless Computing. In 2018 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 18). USENIX Association, Boston, MA, 923–935. https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc18/presentation/akkusGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Fritz Alder, N. Asokan, Arseny Kurnikov, Andrew Paverd, and Michael Steiner. 2019. S-FaaS: Trustworthy and Accountable Function-as-a-Service Using Intel SGX. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Cloud Computing Security Workshop (London, United Kingdom) (CCSW’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1145/3338466.3358916Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Kalev Alpernas, Cormac Flanagan, Sadjad Fouladi, Leonid Ryzhyk, Mooly Sagiv, Thomas Schmitz, and Keith Winstein. 2018. Secure Serverless Computing Using Dynamic Information Flow Control. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 2, OOPSLA, Article 118 (Oct. 2018), 26 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3276488Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Amazon. 2006. EC2 Beta Announcement. https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2006/08/24/announcing-amazon-elastic-compute-cloud-amazon-ec2---beta/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Amazon Web Services. 2020. Identity and access management for AWS Lambda. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/lambda/latest/dg/security-iam.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Michael Armbrust, Armando Fox, Rean Griffith, Anthony D. Joseph, Randy H. Katz, Andrew Konwinski, Gunho Lee, David A. Patterson, Ariel Rabkin, and Matei Zaharia. 2009. Above the Clouds: A Berkeley View of Cloud Computing. (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Sergei Arnautov, Bohdan Trach, Franz Gregor, Thomas Knauth, Andre Martin, Christian Priebe, Joshua Lind, Divya Muthukumaran, Dan O’Keeffe, Mark L. Stillwell, David Goltzsche, Dave Eyers, Rüdiger Kapitza, Peter Pietzuch, and Christof Fetzer. 2016. SCONE: Secure Linux Containers with Intel SGX. In 12th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 16). USENIX Association, Savannah, GA, 689–703. https://www.usenix.org/conference/osdi16/technical-sessions/presentation/arnautovGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Ioana Baldini, Paul Castro, Kerry Chang, Perry Cheng, Stephen Fink, Vatche Ishakian, Nick Mitchell, Vinod Muthusamy, Rodric Rabbah, Aleksander Slominski, and Philippe Suter. 2017. Serverless Computing: Current Trends and Open Problems. Springer Singapore, Singapore, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5026-8_1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Daniel Barcelona-Pons, Pedro García-López, Álvaro Ruiz, Amanda Gómez-Gómez, Gerard París, and Marc Sánchez-Artigas. 2019. FaaS Orchestration of Parallel Workloads. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Serverless Computing (Davis, CA, USA) (WOSC ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 25–30. https://doi.org/10.1145/3366623.3368137Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Karthikeyan Bhargavan, Cédric Fournet, and Andrew D. Gordon. 2004. A Semantics for Web Services Authentication. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (Venice, Italy) (POPL ’04). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 198–209. https://doi.org/10.1145/964001.964018Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Eric Jason Brandwine. 2017. Permissions decisions in a service provider environment. US Patent 9,712,542.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Stefan Brenner and Rüdiger Kapitza. 2019. Trust More, Serverless. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM International Conference on Systems and Storage (Haifa, Israel) (SYSTOR ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1145/3319647.3325825Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Cloudflare. 2020. What Is Bot Traffic?https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/bots/what-is-bot-traffic/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Pubali Datta, Prabuddha Kumar, Tristan Morris, Michael Grace, Amir Rahmati, , and Adam Bates. 2020. Valve: Securing Function Workflows on Serverless Computing Platforms. In Proceedings of The Web Conference 2020 (WWW ’20), April 20–24, 2020, Taipei, Taiwan. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://adambates.org/documents/Datta_Www20.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Tarek Elgamal. 2018. Costless: Optimizing cost of serverless computing through function fusion and placement. In 2018 IEEE/ACM Symposium on Edge Computing (SEC). IEEE, 300–312.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. David Ferriaolo and Richard Kuhn. 1992. Role-based access controls. In Proceedings of 15th NIST-NCSC National Computer Security Conference. 554–563.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Sadjad Fouladi, Francisco Romero, Dan Iter, Qian Li, Shuvo Chatterjee, Christos Kozyrakis, Matei Zaharia, and Keith Winstein. 2019. From Laptop to Lambda: Outsourcing Everyday Jobs to Thousands of Transient Functional Containers. In 2019 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 19). USENIX Association, Renton, WA, 475–488. https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc19/presentation/fouladiGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Maurizio Gabbrielli, Saverio Giallorenzo, Ivan Lanese, Fabrizio Montesi, Marco Peressotti, and Stefano Pio Zingaro. 2019. No More, No Less. In Coordination Models and Languages, Hanne Riis Nielson and Emilio Tuosto (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 148–157.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Xing Gao, Zhongshu Gu, Zhengfa Li, Hani Jamjoom, and Cong Wang. 2019. Houdini’s Escape: Breaking the Resource Rein of Linux Control Groups. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (London, United Kingdom) (CCS ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1073–1086. https://doi.org/10.1145/3319535.3354227Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. X. Gao, B. Steenkamer, Z. Gu, M. Kayaalp, D. Pendarakis, and H. Wang. 2018. A Study on the Security Implications of Information Leakages in Container Clouds. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing (2018), 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1109/TDSC.2018.2879605Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. GitHub. 2018. GitHub DDOS Incident Report. https://github.blog/2018-03-01-ddos-incident-report/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Faisal Hafeez, Pezhman Nasirifard, and Hans-Arno Jacobsen. 2018. A Serverless Approach to Publish/Subscribe Systems. In Proceedings of the 19th International Middleware Conference (Posters) (Rennes, France) (Middleware ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 9–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3284014.3284019Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Adam Hall and Umakishore Ramachandran. 2019. An Execution Model for Serverless Functions at the Edge. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Internet of Things Design and Implementation (Montreal, Quebec, Canada) (IoTDI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1145/3302505.3310084Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Scott Hendrickson, Stephen Sturdevant, Tyler Harter, Venkateshwaran Venkataramani, Andrea C. Arpaci-Dusseau, and Remzi H. Arpaci-Dusseau. 2016. Serverless Computation with OpenLambda. In 8th USENIX Workshop on Hot Topics in Cloud Computing (HotCloud 16). USENIX Association, Denver, CO. https://www.usenix.org/conference/hotcloud16/workshop-program/presentation/hendricksonGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. V. C. Hu, D. R. Kuhn, D. F. Ferraiolo, and J. Voas. 2015. Attribute-Based Access Control. Computer 48, 2 (2015), 85–88.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Huang, Xiaowei. 2019. Forensic Analysis in Access Control: a Case-Study of a Cloud Application. http://hdl.handle.net/10012/15265Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Padmavathi Iyer and Amirreza Masoumzadeh. 2019. Generalized Mining of Relationship-Based Access Control Policies in Evolving Systems. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies (Toronto ON, Canada) (SACMAT ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 135–140. https://doi.org/10.1145/3322431.3325419Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Abhinav Jangda, Donald Pinckney, Yuriy Brun, and Arjun Guha. 2019. Formal Foundations of Serverless Computing. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 3, OOPSLA, Article 149 (Oct. 2019), 26 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3360575Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Eric Jonas, Johann Schleier-Smith, Vikram Sreekanti, Chia-che Tsai, Anurag Khandelwal, Qifan Pu, Vaishaal Shankar, Joao Carreira, Karl Krauth, Neeraja Jayant Yadwadkar, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Raluca Ada Popa, Ion Stoica, and David A. Patterson. 2019. Cloud Programming Simplified: A Berkeley View on Serverless Computing. CoRR abs/1902.03383(2019). arxiv:1902.03383http://arxiv.org/abs/1902.03383Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Eric Jonas, Johann Schleier-Smith, Vikram Sreekanti, Chia-Che Tsai, Anurag Khandelwal, Qifan Pu, Vaishaal Shankar, Joao Carreira, Karl Krauth, Neeraja Yadwadkar, 2019. Cloud Programming Simplified: A Berkeley View on Serverless Computing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.03383(2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Rich Jones. 2019. Gone in 60 Milliseconds: Intrusion and Exfiltration in Server-less Architectures. https://media.ccc.de/v/33c3-7865-gone_in_60_milliseconds.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Bendiab Keltoum and Boucherkha Samia. 2017. A Dynamic Federated Identity Management Approach for Cloud-Based Environments. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Internet of Things, Data and Cloud Computing (Cambridge, United Kingdom) (ICC ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 104, 5 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3018896.3025152Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Ana Klimovic, Yawen Wang, Christos Kozyrakis, Patrick Stuedi, Jonas Pfefferle, and Animesh Trivedi. 2018. Understanding Ephemeral Storage for Serverless Analytics. In 2018 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 18). USENIX Association, Boston, MA, 789–794. https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc18/presentation/klimovic-serverlessGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Ana Klimovic, Yawen Wang, Patrick Stuedi, Animesh Trivedi, Jonas Pfefferle, and Christos Kozyrakis. 2018. Pocket: Elastic Ephemeral Storage for Serverless Analytics. In 13th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 18). USENIX Association, Carlsbad, CA, 427–444. https://www.usenix.org/conference/osdi18/presentation/klimovicGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. M. Koch, L. V. Mancini, and F. Parisi-Presicce. 2001. On the Specification and Evolution of Access Control Policies. In Proceedings of the Sixth ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies (Chantilly, Virginia, USA) (SACMAT ’01). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1145/373256.373280Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. Manuel Koch, Luigi V. Mancini, and Francesco Parisi-Presicce. 2002. A Graph-Based Formalism for RBAC. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 5, 3 (Aug. 2002), 332–365. https://doi.org/10.1145/545186.545191Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. M. Koch, L. V. Mancini, and F. Parisi-Presicce. 2004. Administrative Scope in the Graph-Based Framework. In Proceedings of the Ninth ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies (Yorktown Heights, New York, USA) (SACMAT ’04). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1145/990036.990051Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. Andrew Krug and Graham Jones. 2019. Hacking serverless runtimes: Profiling AWS Lambda, Azure Functions, And more. https://www.blackhat.com/us-17/briefings/schedule/#hacking-serverless-runtimes-profiling-aws-lambda-azure-functions-and-more-6434.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Jörn Kuhlenkamp, Sebastian Werner, Maria C. Borges, Karim El Tal, and Stefan Tai. 2019. An Evaluation of FaaS Platforms as a Foundation for Serverless Big Data Processing. In Proceedings of the 12th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing(Auckland, New Zealand) (UCC’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1145/3344341.3368796Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Philipp Leitner, Erik Wittern, Josef Spillner, and Waldemar Hummer. 2019. A mixed-method empirical study of Function-as-a-Service software development in industrial practice. Journal of Systems and Software 149 (2019), 340 – 359. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0164121218302735Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  74. B. Reaves M. Meli, M. McNiece. 2019. How Bad Can It Git? Characterizing Secret Leakage in Public GitHub Repositories. In Proceedings of the Networked and Distributed Systems Security Symposium (NDSS).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  75. Johannes Manner, Stefan Kolb, and Guido Wirtz. 2019. Troubleshooting Serverless functions: a combined monitoring and debugging approach. SICS Software-Intensive Cyber-Physical Systems 34, 2 (01 Jun 2019), 99–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00450-019-00398-6Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  76. G. McGrath and P. R. Brenner. 2017. Serverless Computing: Design, Implementation, and Performance. In 2017 IEEE 37th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops (ICDCSW). 405–410. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDCSW.2017.36Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  77. Dominik Meissner, Benjamin Erb, Frank Kargl, and Matthias Tichy. 2018. Retro-λ: An Event-sourced Platform for Serverless Applications with Retroactive Computing Support. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM International Conference on Distributed and Event-based Systems (Hamilton, New Zealand) (DEBS ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1145/3210284.3210285Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  78. Hai Duc Nguyen, Chaojie Zhang, Zhujun Xiao, and Andrew A. Chien. 2019. Real-Time Serverless: Enabling Application Performance Guarantees. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Serverless Computing (Davis, CA, USA) (WOSC ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3366623.3368133Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. Edward Oakes, Leon Yang, Dennis Zhou, Kevin Houck, Tyler Harter, Andrea Arpaci-Dusseau, and Remzi Arpaci-Dusseau. 2018. SOCK: Rapid Task Provisioning with Serverless-Optimized Containers. In 2018 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 18). USENIX Association, Boston, MA, 57–70. https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc18/presentation/oakesGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  80. Matthew Obetz, Anirban Das, Timothy Castiglia, Stacy Patterson, and Ana Milanova. 2020. Formalizing Event-Driven Behavior of Serverless Applications. In Service-Oriented and Cloud Computing, Antonio Brogi, Wolf Zimmermann, and Kyriakos Kritikos(Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 19–29.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  81. Sylvia Osborn and Yuxia Guo. 2000. Modeling Users in Role-Based Access Control. In Proceedings of the Fifth ACM Workshop on Role-Based Access Control (Berlin, Germany) (RBAC ’00). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 31–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/344287.344299Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  82. Per Persson and Ola Angelsmark. 2017. Kappa: Serverless IoT Deployment. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Serverless Computing (Las Vegas, Nevada) (WoSC ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3154847.3154853Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  83. Protego. 2020. Is AWS Lambda the Most Secure Application Platform? Probably.https://www.protego.io/is-aws-lambda-secure/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  84. Qifan Pu, Shivaram Venkataraman, and Ion Stoica. 2019. Shuffling, Fast and Slow: Scalable Analytics on Serverless Infrastructure. In 16th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 19). USENIX Association, Boston, MA, 193–206. https://www.usenix.org/conference/nsdi19/presentation/puGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  85. Mark Ryland. 2016. Identity and access management-based access control in virtual networks. US Patent 9,438,506.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. Josep Sampé, Gil Vernik, Marc Sánchez-Artigas, and Pedro García-López. 2018. Serverless Data Analytics in the IBM Cloud. In Proceedings of the 19th International Middleware Conference Industry (Rennes, France) (Middleware ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3284028.3284029Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  87. Tyler J. Skluzacek, Ryan Chard, Ryan Wong, Zhuozhao Li, Yadu N. Babuji, Logan Ward, Ben Blaiszik, Kyle Chard, and Ian Foster. 2019. Serverless Workflows for Indexing Large Scientific Data. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Serverless Computing (Davis, CA, USA) (WOSC ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 43–48. https://doi.org/10.1145/3366623.3368140Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  88. Nordstrom Technology. 2019. Hello, Retail!https://github.com/Nordstrom/hello-retailGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  89. Ivonne Thomas and Christoph Meinel. 2010. An Identity Provider to Manage Reliable Digital Identities for SOA and the Web. In Proceedings of the 9th Symposium on Identity and Trust on the Internet (Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA) (IDTRUST ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/1750389.1750393Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  90. Kailas Vodrahalli and Eric Zhou. [n.d.]. Using Software-defined Caching to Enable Efficient Communication in a Serverless Environment. ([n. d.]).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  91. He Wang and Sylvia L. Osborn. 2007. Discretionary Access Control with the Administrative Role Graph Model. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies (Sophia Antipolis, France) (SACMAT ’07). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 151–156. https://doi.org/10.1145/1266840.1266865Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  92. Liang Wang, Mengyuan Li, Yinqian Zhang, Thomas Ristenpart, and Michael Swift. 2018. Peeking Behind the Curtains of Serverless Platforms. In 2018 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 18). USENIX Association, Boston, MA, 133–146. https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc18/presentation/wang-liangGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  93. Miao Zhang, Yifei Zhu, Cong Zhang, and Jiangchuan Liu. 2019. Video Processing with Serverless Computing: A Measurement Study. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM Workshop on Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital Audio and Video (Amherst, Massachusetts) (NOSSDAV ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 61–66. https://doi.org/10.1145/3304112.3325608Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Workflow Integration Alleviates Identity and Access Management in Serverless Computing
          Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

          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 Other conferences
            ACSAC '20: Proceedings of the 36th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference
            December 2020
            962 pages
            ISBN:9781450388580
            DOI:10.1145/3427228

            Copyright © 2020 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 the author(s) 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: 8 December 2020

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed limited

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate104of497submissions,21%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader

          HTML Format

          View this article in HTML Format .

          View HTML Format