Trust is a fundamental factor when people are interacting with each other, hence it is natural that trust has been researched also in relation to applications and agents. However, there is no single definition of trust that everybody would share. This, in turn, has caused a multitude of formal or computational trust models to emerge to enable trust use and dependence in applications. Since the field is so diverse, there also exists a confusion of terminology, where similar concepts have different names and, what is more disturbing, same terms are also used for different concepts. To organize the research models in a new and more structured way, this paper surveys and classifies thirteen computational trust models by the trust decision input factors. This analysis is used to create a new comprehensive ontology for trust to facilitate interaction between business systems.


Trust Model Trust Evaluation Trust Relationship Trust Management Trust Concept 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abdul-Rahman, A., Hailes, S.: A distributed trust model. In: Proceedings of the 1997 New Security Paradigms Workshop, pp. 48–60. ACM Press, New York (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bhargava, B., Zhong, Y.: Authorization based on evidence and trust. In: Kambayashi, Y., Winiwarter, W., Arikawa, M. (eds.) DaWaK 2002. LNCS, vol. 2454, pp. 94–103. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blaze, M., Feigenbaum, J., Keromytis, A.D.: KeyNote: Trust management for public-key infrastructures. In: Christianson, B., Crispo, B., Harbison, W.S., Roe, M. (eds.) Security Protocols 1998. LNCS, vol. 1550, pp. 59–63. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blaze, M., Feigenbaum, J., Lacy, J.: Decentralized trust management. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE, Los Alamitos (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cahill, V., Gray, E., Seigneur, J.-M., Jensen, C., Chen, Y., Shand, B., Dimmock, N., Twigg, A., Bacon, J., English, C., Wagealla, W., Terzis, S., Nixon, P., Serugendo, G.D.M., Bryce, C., Carbone, M., Krukow, K., Nielsen, M.: Using trust for secure collaboration in uncertain environments. Pervasive Computing 2(3), 52–61 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carbone, M., Nielsen, M., Sassone, V.: A formal model for trust in dynamic networks. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods, pp. 54–61. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen, R., Yeager, W.: Poblano a distributed trust model for peer-to-peer networks. Technical paper, Sun Microsystems (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chu, Y.-H., Feigenbaum, J., LaMacchia, B., Resnick, P., Strauss, M.: REFEREE: Trust management for Web applications. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 29(8-13), 953–964 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Demolombe, R.: Reasoning about trust: A formal logical framework. In: Jensen, C., Poslad, S., Dimitrakos, T. (eds.) iTrust 2004. LNCS, vol. 2995, pp. 291–303. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dingledine, R.: The Free Haven project: Design and deployment of an anonymous secure data haven. Master’s thesis, MIT (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Essin, D.J.: Patterns of trust and policy. In: Proceedings of the 1997 New Security Paradigms Workshop. ACM Press, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gambetta, D.: Can we trust trust? Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, 213–237 (2000) Electronic editionGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Golbeck, J., Parsia, B., Hendler, J.: Trust networks on the semantic web. In: Klusch, M., Omicini, A., Ossowski, S., Laamanen, H. (eds.) CIA 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2782, pp. 238–249. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grandison, T., Sloman, M.: Specifying and analysing trust for internet applications. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IFIP Conference on e-Commerce, e-Business, e-Government I3e2002, Lisbon, Portugal (October 2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jøsang, A.: The right type of trust for computer networks. In: Proceedings of the ACM New Security Paradigms Workshop. ACM, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marsh, S.: Formalising Trust as a Computational Concept. PhD thesis, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Stirling (1994)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    OMG. OWL full and UML 2.0 compared (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sabater, J., Sierra, C.: REGRET: A reputation model for gregarious societies. Research Report 2000-06, Institut d’Investigacio i Intelligencia Artificial (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    W3C. OWL web ontology language overview, W3C Recommendation (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yahalom, R., Klein, B., Beth, T.: Trust relationships in secure systems - a distributed authentication perspective. In: Proceedings of the 1993 IEEE Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, pp. 150–164. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lea Viljanen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Helsinki 

Personalised recommendations