Abstract
We present a tool PEALT that supports the understanding and validation of mechanisms that numerically aggregate trust evidence of potentially heterogenous sources. Such mechanisms are expressed in the policy composition language Peal and subjected to vacuity checking, sensitivity analysis of thresholds, and policy refinement. Verification code is generated by either compiling away numerical references prior to constraint solving or by delegating numerical reasoning to Z3, the common back-end constraint solver of PEALT. The former gives compact diagnostics but restricts value ranges and may be space intensive. The latter generates compact verification code, but gives verbose diagnostics, and may struggle with multiplicative reasoning. We experimentally compare code generation and verification running times of these methods on randomly generated analyses and on a non-random benchmark modeling majority voting. Our findings suggest both methods have complementary value and may scale up well for the analysis of most realistic case studies.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
References
Announcement of Cybersecurity Collaborative Research Alliance. Press Release, US Army Research Laboratory (October 15, 2013)
Bistarelli, S., Martinelli, F., Santini, F.: A semantic foundation for trust management languages with weights: An application to the RT family. In: Rong, C., Jaatun, M.G., Sandnes, F.E., Yang, L.T., Ma, J. (eds.) ATC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5060, pp. 481–495. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Chakraborty, S., Ray, I.: TrustBAC: integrating trust relationships into the RBAC model for access control in open systems. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies, SACMAT 2006, pp. 49–58. ACM, New York (2006)
Crampton, J., Huth, M., Morisset, C.: Policy-based access control from numerical evidence. Tech. Rep. 2013/6, Imperial College London, Department of Computing (October 2013) ISSN 1469-4166 (Print), ISSN 1469-4174 (Online)
De Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Satisfiability modulo theories: introduction and applications. Commun. ACM 54(9), 69–77 (2011)
Dong, C., Dulay, N.: Shinren: Non-monotonic trust management for distributed systems. In: Nishigaki, M., Jøsang, A., Murayama, Y., Marsh, S. (eds.) IFIPTM 2010. IFIP AICT, vol. 321, pp. 125–140. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Huth, M., Kuo, J.H.P.: PEALT: A reasoning tool for numerical aggregation of trust evidence. Tech. Rep. 2013/7, Imperial College London, Department of Computing (2013) ISSN 1469-4166 (Print)
Huth, M., Kuo, J.H.-P.: Towards verifiable trust management for software execution(extended abstract). In: Huth, M., Asokan, N., Čapkun, S., Flechais, I., Coles-Kemp, L. (eds.) TRUST 2013. LNCS, vol. 7904, pp. 275–276. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Jøsang, A., Ismail, R.: The beta reputation system. In: Proceedings of the 15th Bled Conference on Electronic Commerce, Bled, Slovenia, June 17-19 (2002)
Kirlappos, I., Sasse, M.A., Harvey, N.: Why trust seals don’t work: A study of user perceptions and behavior. In: Katzenbeisser, S., Weippl, E., Camp, L.J., Volkamer, M., Reiter, M., Zhang, X. (eds.) TRUST 2012. LNCS, vol. 7344, pp. 308–324. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Mayer, R., Davis, J., Schoorman, F.D.: An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review 20(3), 709–734 (1995)
de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Z3: An efficient SMT solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)
Mui, L.: Computational Models of Trust and Reputation: Agents, Evolutionary Games, and Social Networks. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2002)
Muller, T., Schweitzer, P.: On beta models with trust chains. In: Fernández-Gago, C., Martinelli, F., Pearson, S., Agudo, I. (eds.) IFIPTM. IFIP AICT, vol. 401, pp. 49–65. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Ni, Q., Bertino, E., Lobo, J.: Risk-based access control systems built on fuzzy inferences. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM Symposium on Information, Computer and Communications Security, ASIACCS 2010, pp. 250–260. ACM, New York (2010), http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1755688.1755719
Nurse, J.R.C., Creese, S., Goldsmith, M., Rahman, S.S.: Supporting human decision-making online using information-trustworthiness metrics. In: Marinos, L., Askoxylakis, I. (eds.) HAS/HCII 2013. LNCS, vol. 8030, pp. 316–325. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)
Riegelsberger, J., Sasse, M.A., McCarthy, J.D.: The mechanics of trust: A framework for research and design. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 62(3), 381–422 (2005)
Schwoon, S., Jha, S., Reps, T.W., Stubblebine, S.G.: On generalized authorization problems. In: CSFW, pp. 202–218. IEEE Computer Society (2003)
Shapiro, R., Bratus, S., Smith, S.W.: “Weird Machines” in ELF: A Spotlight on the Underappreciated Metadata. In: Proceedings of the 7th USENIX Workshop on Offensive Technologies (WOOT 2013), 12 pages. USENIX (2013)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Huth, M., Kuo, J.HP. (2014). PEALT: An Automated Reasoning Tool for Numerical Aggregation of Trust Evidence. In: Ábrahám, E., Havelund, K. (eds) Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. TACAS 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8413. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54862-8_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54862-8_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-54861-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-54862-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)