“How Did They Know?”—Model-Checking for Analysis of Information Leakage in Social Networks

  • Louise A. Dennis
  • Marija Slavkovik
  • Michael Fisher
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10315)


We examine the use of model-checking in the analysis of information leakage in social networks. We take previous work on the formal analysis of digital crowds and show how a variation on the formalism can naturally model the interaction of people and groups of followers in intersecting social networks. We then show how probabilistic models of the forwarding and reposting behaviour of individuals can be used to analyse the risk that information will leak to unwanted parties. We illustrate our approach by analysing several simple examples.



This work was partially funded through EPSRC Grants EP/L024845 (“Verifiable Autonomy”) and EP/N007565 (“Science of Sensor System Software”). The authors would also like to thank Dagstuhl for their facilities and hospitality, something that provided the impetus for this work.

Access to Data. The Prism models used in this work will are available in the University of Liverpool’s Data Catalogue at DOI:10.17638/datacat.liverpool.ac.uk/163.


  1. 1.
    Abdulrahman, R., Alim, S., Neagu, D., Holton, D.R.W., Ridley, M.: Multi agent system approach for vulnerability analysis of online social network profiles over time. Int. J. Knowl. Web Intell. 3(3), 256–286 (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJKWI.2012.050854 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belardinelli, F., Grossi, D.: On the formal verification of diffusion phenomena in open dynamic agent networks. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 237–245 (2015). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2772912
  3. 3.
    Bryant, E.M., Marmo, J.: The rules of facebook friendship: a two-stage examination of interaction rules in close, casual, and acquaintance friendships. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 29(8), 1013–1035 (2012). http://spr.sagepub.com/content/29/8/1013.abstract CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.: Model Checking. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dennis, L.A., Fisher, M., Webster, M.: Two-stage agent program verification. J. Logic Comput. (2016). http://logcom.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/02/16/logcom.exv002.abstract
  6. 6.
    Dennis, L.A., Fisher, M., Webster, M., Bordini, R.H.: Model checking agent programming languages. Autom. Softw. Eng. 19(1), 5–63 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fisher, M., Dennis, L., Hepple, A.: Modular Multi-Agent Design. Technical report ULCS-09-002, Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool (2009). http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/research
  8. 8.
    Fisher, M., Kakoudakis, T.: Flexible agent grouping in executable temporal logic. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Languages for Intensional Programming (ISLIP). World Scientific Press (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hansson, H., Jonsson, B.: A logic for reasoning about time and reliability. Formal Aspects Comput. 6, 102–111 (1994)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hepple, A., Dennis, L., Fisher, M.: A common basis for agent organisation in BDI languages. In: Dastani, M., Fallah Seghrouchni, A., Leite, J., Torroni, P. (eds.) LADS 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5118, pp. 71–88. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-85058-8_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Holm, H., Sommestad, T., Ekstedt, M., Nordström, L.: CySeMol: a tool for cyber security analysis of enterpises. In: 22nd International Conference and Exhibition Electricity Distribution (CIRED 2013), pp. 1–4. IET (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-22110-1_47 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lam, I.-F., Chen, K.-T., Chen, L.-J.: Involuntary information leakage in social network services. In: Matsuura, K., Fujisaki, E. (eds.) IWSEC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5312, pp. 167–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-89598-5_11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee, Y.C., Bishop, S., Okhravi, H., Rahimi, S.: Information leakage detection in distributed systems using software agents. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Intelligent Agents, pp. 128–135 (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lu, X., Yu, Z., Guo, B., Zhou, X.: Predicting the content dissemination trends by repost behavior modeling in mobile social networks. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 42, 197–207 (2014). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1084804514000599 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Padget, J., Elakehal, E.E., Satoh, K., Ishikawa, F.: On requirements representation and reasoning using answer set programming. In: 1st International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence for Requirements Engineering (AIRE 2014), Karlskrona, Sweden, pp. 35–42 (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Padget, J.A., Satoh, K., Ishikawa, F.: A normative approach to exploring multi-agency privacy and transparency. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Juris-informatics (JURISIN 2013), Yokohama, Japan, pp. 9–22 (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pieters, W., Padget, J., Dechesne, F., Dignum, V., Aldewereld, H.: Effectiveness of qualitative and quantitative security obligations. J. Inf. Secur. Appl. 22, 3–16 (2015). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214212614000805. Special Issue on Security of Information and Networks
  19. 19.
    PRISM: Probabilistic Symbolic Model Checker. http://www.prismmodelchecker.org. Accessed 31 May 2013
  20. 20.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Modelling agents within a BDI-architecture. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR). Morgan Kaufmann (1991)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: BDI agents: from theory to practice. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS), pp. 312–319 (1995)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Seligman, J., Liu, F., Girard, P.: Facebook and the epistemic logic of friendship. In: Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK) (2013). http://www.tark.org/proceedings/tark_jan7_13/p.229-seligman.pdf
  23. 23.
    Sichman, J.S.: DEPINT: dependence-based coalition formation in an open multi-agent scenarios. J. Artif. Soc. Social Sim. 1(2) (1998)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sichman, J.S., Conte, R., Demazeau, Y., Castelfranchi, C.: A Social Reasoning Mechanism Based on Dependence Networks, pp. 188–192. John Wiley and Sons (1994)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Slavkovik, M., Dennis, L., Fisher, M.: An abstract formal basis for digital crowds. Distrib. Parallel Databases 33(1), 3–31 (2015). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10619-014-7161-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stirling, C.: Modal and temporal logics. In: Handbook of Logic in Computer Science. Oxford University Press (1992)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R.: Intelligent agents: theory and practice. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 10(2), 115–152 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Louise A. Dennis
    • 1
  • Marija Slavkovik
    • 2
  • Michael Fisher
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  2. 2.Department of Information Science and Media StudiesUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations