Advertisement

Impact of Policy Design on Workflow Resiliency Computation Time

Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9259)

Abstract

Workflows are complex operational processes that include security constraints restricting which users can perform which tasks. An improper user-task assignment may prevent the completion of the workflow, and deciding such an assignment at runtime is known to be complex, especially when considering user unavailability (known as the resiliency problem). Therefore, design tools are required that allow fast evaluation of workflow resiliency. In this paper, we propose a methodology for workflow designers to assess the impact of the security policy on computing the resiliency of a workflow. Our approach relies on encoding a workflow into the probabilistic model-checker PRISM, allowing its resiliency to be evaluated by solving a Markov Decision Process. We observe and illustrate that adding or removing some constraints has a clear impact on the resiliency computation time, and we compute the set of security constraints that can be artificially added to a security policy in order to reduce the computation time while maintaining the resiliency.

Keywords

Workflow satisfiability problem Probabilistic model checker User availability 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Workflow handbook 1997. chapter The Workflow Reference Model, pp. 243–293. John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Armando, A., Ponta, S.E.: Model checking authorization requirements in business processes. Comput. Secur. 40, 1–22 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ayed, S., Cuppens-Boulahia, N., Cuppens, F.: Deploying security policy in intra and inter workflow management systems. In: International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES 2009), pp. 58–65, March 2009Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bakkali, H.E.: Enhancing workflow systems resiliency by using delegation and priority concepts. J. Digital Inf. Manage. 11(4), 267–276 (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Basin, D., Burri, S.J., Karjoth, G.: Obstruction-free authorization enforcement: aligning security with business objectives. In: Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE 24th Computer Security Foundations Symposium (CSF 2011), pp. 99–113. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Basin, D., Burri, S.J., Karjoth, G.: Optimal workflow-aware authorizations. In: Proceedings of SACMAT 2012, pp. 93–102. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Basu, A., Kumar, A.: Research commentary: workflow management issues in e-business. Info. Sys. Res. 13(1), 1–14 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bertino, E., Ferrari, E., Atluri, V.: The specification and enforcement of authorization constraints in workflow management systems. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 2(1), 65–104 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Botha, R., Eloff, J.H.P.: Separation of duties for access control enforcement in workflow environments. IBM Sys. J. 40(3), 666–682 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Calinescu, R., Ghezzi, C., Kwiatkowska, M., Mirandola, R.: Self-adaptive software needs quantitative verification at runtime. Commun. ACM 55(9), 69–77 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Calinescu, R., Grunske, L., Kwiatkowska, M., Mirandola, R., Tamburrelli, G.: Dynamic QoS management and optimisation in service-based systems. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 37(3), 387–409 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Crampton, J., Gutin, G., Yeo, A.: On the parameterized complexity and kernelization of the workflow satisfiability problem. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 16(1), 4 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Crampton, J., Khambhammettu, H.: Delegation and satisfiability in workflow systems. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM symposium on Access control models and technologies, pp. 31–40. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Georgakopoulos, D., Hornick, M., Sheth, A.: An overview of workflow management: From process modeling to workflow automation infrastructure. Distrib. Parallel Databases 3(2), 119–153 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    He, L., Huang, C., Duan, K., Li, K., Chen, H., Sun, J., Jarvis, S.A.: Modeling and analyzing the impact of authorization on workflow executions. Future Gener. Comput. Sys. 28(8), 1177–1193 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Herbert, L., Sharp, R.: Precise quantitative analysis of probabilistic business process model and notation workflows. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng. 13(1), 011007 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hiden, H., Woodman, S., Watson, P., Cala, J.: Developing cloud applications using the e-science central platform. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A : Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 371(1983), 20120085 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Howard, R.A.: Dynamic Programming and Markov Processes. MIT Press, Cambridge (1960) zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kohler, M., Liesegang, C., Schaad, A.: Classification model for access control constraints. In: IEEE International on Performance, Computing, and Communications Conference (IPCCC 2007) pp. 410–417, April 2007Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kwiatkowska, M., Norman, G., Parker, D.: PRISM 4.0: verification of probabilistic real-time systems. In: Gopalakrishnan, G., Qadeer, S. (eds.) CAV 2011. LNCS, vol. 6806, pp. 585–591. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lowalekar, M., Tiwari, R.K., Karlapalem, K.: Security policy satisfiability and failure resilience in workflows. In: Matyáš, V., Fischer-Hübner, S., Cvrček, D., Švenda, P. (eds.) The Future of Identity. IFIP AICT, vol. 298, pp. 197–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2009) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mace, J.C., Morisset, C., van Moorsel, A.: Quantitative workflow resiliency. In: Kutyłowski, M., Vaidya, J. (eds.) ICAIS 2014, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8712, pp. 344–361. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mace, J.C., Morisset, C., van Moorsel, A.: Impact of policy design on workflow resiliency computation time. Technical report CS-TR-1469, School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, UK, May 2015Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mace, J.C., Morisset, C., van Moorsel, A.: Modelling user availability in workflow resiliency analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2015 Symposium and Bootcamp on the Science of Security (HotSoS 2015), pp. 7:1–7:10. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Martinelli, F., Morisset, C.: Quantitative access control with partially-observable markov decision processes. In: Proceedings of CODASPY 2012, pp. 169–180. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Unertl, K.M., Johnson, K.B., Lorenzi, N.M.: Health information exchange technology on the front lines of healthcare: workflow factors and patterns of use. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 19(3), 392–400 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wainer, J., Barthelmess, P., Kumar, A.: W-rbac - a workflow security model incorporating controlled overriding of constraints. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Sys. 12, 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wang, Q., Li, N.: Satisfiability and resiliency in workflow authorization systems. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 13(4), 40:1–40:35 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computing Science, Newcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper

Buy options