Advertisement

Specifying and Verifying Secrecy in Workflows with Arbitrarily Many Agents

  • Bernd Finkbeiner
  • Helmut Seidl
  • Christian Müller
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9938)

Abstract

Web-based workflow management systems, like EasyChair, HealthVault, Ebay, or Amazon, often deal with confidential information such as the identity of reviewers, health data, or credit card numbers. Because the number of participants in the workflow is in principle unbounded, it is difficult to describe the information flow policy of such systems in specification languages that are limited to a fixed number of agents. We introduce a first-order version of HyperLTL, which allows us to express information flow requirements in workflows with arbitrarily many agents. We present a bounded model checking technique that reduces the violation of the information flow policy to the satisfiability of a first-order formula. We furthermore identify conditions under which the resulting satisfiability problem is guaranteed to be decidable.

Keywords

Model Check Satisfiability Problem Bound Model Check Trace Variable Epistemic Temporal Logic 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgment

This work was partially supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) under the project “SpAGAT” (grant no. FI 936/2-1) in the priority program “Reliably Secure Software Systems “RS3” and the doctorate program “Program and Model Analysis - PUMA” (no. 1480).

References

  1. 1.
    Amtoft, T., Banerjee, A.: Information flow analysis in logical form. In: Giacobazzi, R. (ed.) SAS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3148, pp. 100–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andersen, H.R.: A polyadic modal \(\mu \)-calculus. Technical report, Danmarks TekniskeUniversitet (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arapinis, M., Bursuc, S., Ryan, M.: Privacy supporting cloud computing: ConfiChair, a case study. In: Degano, P., Guttman, J.D. (eds.) Principles of Security and Trust. LNCS, vol. 7215, pp. 89–108. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ball, T., Bjørner, N., Gember, A., Itzhaky, S., Karbyshev, A., Sagiv, M., Schapira, M., Valadarsky, A.: Vericon: towards verifying controller programs in software-defined networks. In: ACM SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 49, pp. 282–293. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhardwaj, C., Prasad, S.: Parametric information flow control in ehealth. Proc. HealthCom 2015, 102–107 (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Börger, E., Grädel, E., Gurevich, Y.: The Classical Decision Problem. Perspectives in Mathematical Logic. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clarkson, M.R., Finkbeiner, B., Koleini, M., Micinski, K.K., Rabe, M.N., Sánchez, C.: Temporal logics for hyperproperties. In: Abadi, M., Kremer, S. (eds.) POST 2014 (ETAPS 2014). LNCS, vol. 8414, pp. 265–284. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dimitrova, R., Finkbeiner, B., Kovács, M., Rabe, M.N., Seidl, H.: Model checking information flow in reactive systems. In: Kuncak, V., Rybalchenko, A. (eds.) VMCAI 2012. LNCS, vol. 7148, pp. 169–185. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y., Moses, Y., Vardi, M.Y.: Reasoning About Knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Finkbeiner, B., Rabe, M.N.: The linear-hyper-branching spectrum of temporal logics. IT - Inf. Technol. 56(6), 273–279 (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Finkbeiner, B., Rabe, M.N., Sánchez, C.: Algorithms for Model Checking HyperLTL and HyperCTL\(^*\). In: Kroening, D., Păsăreanu, C.S. (eds.) CAV 2015. LNCS, vol. 9206, pp. 30–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goguen, J.A., Meseguer, J.: Security policies and security models. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 11–20 (1982)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Halpern, J.Y., O’Neill, K.R.: Secrecy in multiagent systems. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 12(1), 5:1–5:47 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hunt, S., Sands, D.: On flow-sensitive security types. In: Morrisett, J.G., Jones, S.L.P. (eds.) Proceedings of POpPL 2006, pp. 79–90 (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kanav, S., Lammich, P., Popescu, A.: A conference management system with verified document confidentiality. In: Biere, A., Bloem, R. (eds.) CAV 2014. LNCS, vol. 8559, pp. 167–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: Verification of Concurrent Programs: The Temporal Framework. The Correctness Problem in Computer Science, pp. 215–273. Academic Press, London (1981)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Padon, O., Immerman, N., Karbyshev, A., Lahav, O., Sagiv, M., Shoham, S.: Decentralizing SDN policies. In: ACM SIGPLAN Notices, vol. 50, pp. 663–676. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sabelfeld, A., Sands, D.: Dimensions and principles of declassification. In: Proceedings CSFW 2005, pp. 255–269. IEEE Computer Society (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sutherland, D.: A model of information. In: Proceedings of the 9th National Computer Security Conference, pp. 175–183. DTIC Document (1986)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zdancewic, S., Myers, A.C.: Observational determinism for concurrent program security. In: Proceedings CSFW 2003 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernd Finkbeiner
    • 1
  • Helmut Seidl
    • 2
  • Christian Müller
    • 2
  1. 1.Universität des SaarlandesSaarbrückenGermany
  2. 2.TU MünchenMünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations