Skip to main content

Abstract

Runtime monitoring and verification systems monitor target’s events and verify them against specifications during program execution. For such systems the same event might trigger different monitors remedial actions, which can be contradictory in behavior or complementary (with a specific order). This urges the need to have a method to detect and resolve potential conflict between monitors.

In this paper, we present a formal model for modeling monitors based on Finite State Transducers. Monitors in the model are transducers with events as their input and output alphabet. Monitors composition is used for those monitors in conflict, where each monitor can add to the output set of events, but it can never remove an event. The output set of events is later evaluated using 2 rewrite rules and resulting in non-conflicting behavior.

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

Access this chapter

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

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allan, C., Avgustinov, P., Christensen, A.S., Hendren, L.J., Kuzins, S., Lhoták, O., de Moor, O., Sereni, D., Sittampalam, G., Tibble, J.: Adding trace matching with free variables to AspectJ. In: Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages and Applications (OOPSLA 2005), pp. 345–364. ACM (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bauer, L., Ligatti, J., Walker, D.: A language and system for enforcing run-time security policies. Tech. Rep. TR-699-04, Princeton University (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bauer, L., Ligatti, J., Walker, D.: Composing security policies with polymer. SIGPLAN Not. 40, 305–314 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chen, F., Roşu, G.: MOP: An efficient and generic runtime verification framework. In: Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages and Applications (OOPSLA 2007), pp. 569–588. ACM (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Erlingsson, U., Schneider, F.B.: IRM enforcement of java stack inspection. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SOSP 2000), pp. 246–255. IEEE (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Evans, D.: Policy-Directed Code Safety. Ph.D. thesis, MIT (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Evans, D., Twyman, A.: Flexible policy-directed code safety. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SOSP 1999), pp. 32–45. IEEE (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hamlen, K.W., Jones, M.: Aspect-oriented in-lined reference monitors. In: Workshop on Programming Languages and Analysis for Security (PLAS 2008), pp. 11–20. ACM (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jones, M., Hamlen, K.W.: Enforcing IRM security policies: two case studies. In: Intelligence and Security Informatics (ISI 2009), pp. 214–216. IEEE (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kiczales, G., Hilsdale, E., Hugunin, J., Kersten, M., Palm, J., Griswold, W.G.: An Overview of AspectJ. In: Lee, S.H. (ed.) ECOOP 2001. LNCS, vol. 2072, pp. 327–353. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Ligatti, J.A.: Policy Enforcement via Program Monitoring. Ph.D. thesis, Princeton University (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ligatti, J., Ligatti, J., Bauer, L., Walker, D.: Edit automata: Enforcement mechanisms for run-time security policies. Journal of Information Security 4, 2–16 (2003)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Lomsak, D., Ligatti, J.: PoliSeer: A tool for managing complex security policies. In: International Federation for Information Processing Conference on Trust Management, IFIP-TM (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Meredith, P.O., Jin, D., Griffth, D., Chen, F., Roşu, G.: An overview of monitoring oriented programming. Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (to appear, 2011)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Meredith, P.O., Jin, D., Griffth, D., Chen, F., Roşu, G.: An overview of the MOP runtime verification framework. Journal on Software Techniques for Technology Transfer (to appear, 2011)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Roche, E., Schabes, Y. (eds.): Finite-State Language Processing. Bradford Book, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1997)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 ICST Institute for Computer Science, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering

About this paper

Cite this paper

Hussein, S. (2012). Finite State Transducers Framework for Monitors Conflict Detection and Resolution. In: Meghanathan, N., Chaki, N., Nagamalai, D. (eds) Advances in Computer Science and Information Technology. Computer Science and Information Technology. CCSIT 2012. Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, vol 86. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27317-9_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27317-9_12

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-27316-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-27317-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics