Advertisement

Towards a Theory of Accountability and Audit

  • Radha Jagadeesan
  • Alan Jeffrey
  • Corin Pitcher
  • James Riely
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5789)

Abstract

Accountability mechanisms, which rely on after-the-fact verification, are an attractive means to enforce authorization policies. In this paper, we describe an operational model of accountability-based distributed systems. We describe analyses which support both the design of accountability systems and the validation of auditors for finitary accountability systems. Our study provides formal foundations to explore the tradeoffs underlying the design of accountability systems including: the power of the auditor, the efficiency of the audit protocol, the requirements placed on the agents, and the requirements placed on the communication infrastructure.

Keywords

Session Initiation Protocol Communicate Sequential Process Accountability System Game Graph Authorization Policy 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abadi, M., Birrell, A., Wobber, T.: Access control in a world of software diversity. In: Proc. of the Tenth workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems (2005), http://www.usenix.org/events/hotos05/
  2. Alur, R., Henzinger, T., Kupferman, O.: Alternating time temporal logic. Journal of ACM 49, 672–713 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Anagnostopoulos, A., Goodrich, M.T., Tamassia, R.: Persistent authenticated dictionaries and their applications. In: Davida, G.I., Frankel, Y. (eds.) ISC 2001. LNCS, vol. 2200, pp. 379–393. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersen, D.G., Balakrishnan, H., Feamster, N., Koponen, T., Moon, D., Shenker, S.: Accountable Internet Protocol (AIP). In: SIGCOMM, pp. 339–350. ACM Press, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  5. Argyraki, K., Maniatis, P., Irzak, O., Shenker, S.: An accountability interface for the Internet. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (2007)Google Scholar
  6. Barth, A., Mitchell, J.C., Datta, A., Sundaram, S.: Privacy and utility in business processes. In: CSF, pp. 279–294. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  7. Brookes, S.D., Hoare, C.A.R., Roscoe, A.W.: A theory of communicating sequential processes. J. ACM 31(3), 560–599 (1984)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Buldas, A., Laud, P., Lipmaa, H.: Accountable certificate management using undeniable attestations. In: ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 9–17 (2000)Google Scholar
  9. Calandrino, J.A., Halderman, J.A., Felten, E.W.: Machine-assisted election auditing. In: EVT 2007: Proceedings of the USENIX Workshop on Accurate Electronic Voting Technology, p. 9. USENIX Association (2007)Google Scholar
  10. Cederquist, J.G., Corin, R., Dekker, M.A.C., Etalle, S., den Hartog, J.I.: An audit logic for accountability. In: POLICY, pp. 34–43. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  11. Cederquist, J.G., Corin, R., Dekker, M.A.C., Etalle, S., den Hartog, J.I., Lenzini, G.: Audit-based compliance control. Int. J. Inf. Sec. 6(2-3), 133–151 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cirillo, A., Jagadeesan, R., Pitcher, C., Riely, J.: TAPIDO: Trust and authorization via provenance and integrity in distributed objects (extended abstract). In: Drossopoulou, S. (ed.) ESOP 2008. LNCS, vol. 4960, pp. 208–223. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eriksén, S.: Designing for accountability. In: Proceedings of the second Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction, pp. 177–186 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. Etalle, S., Winsborough, W.H.: A posteriori compliance control. In: SACMAT, pp. 11–20. ACM, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferraiolo, D.F., Kuhn, D.R., Chandramouli, R.: Role-Based Access Control. Computer Security Series. Artech House (2003)Google Scholar
  16. Fournet, C., Gordon, A.D., Maffeis, S.: A type discipline for authorization policies. In: Sagiv, M. (ed.) ESOP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3444, pp. 141–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fournet, C., Guts, N., Nardelli, F.Z.: A formal implementation of value commitment. In: Drossopoulou, S. (ed.) ESOP 2008. LNCS, vol. 4960, pp. 383–397. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Friedman, B., Grudin, J.: Trust and accountability: preserving human values in interactional experience. In: CHI 1998: CHI 1998 conference summary on Human factors in computing systems, p. 213. ACM, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  19. Haeberlen, A., Kouznetsov, P., Druschel, P.: PeerReview: practical accountability for distributed systems. In: Proceedings of 21st ACM SIGOPS symposium on Operating systems principles, pp. 175–188. ACM, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Halpern, J.Y., Weissman, V.: Using first-order logic to reason about policies. In: CSFW, pp. 118–130 (2003)Google Scholar
  21. Hennessy, M., Regan, T.: A process algebra for timed systems. Inf. Comput. 117(2), 221–239 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Lampson, B.W.: Computer security in the real world. IEEE Computer 37(6), 37–46 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Li, N., Mitchell, J.C.: A role-based trust-management framework. In: DISCEX (1), p. 201. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2003)Google Scholar
  24. Lynch, N.A.: Input/output automata: Basic, timed, hybrid, probabilistic, dynamic,.. In: Amadio, R.M., Lugiez, D. (eds.) CONCUR 2003. LNCS, vol. 2761, pp. 187–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  25. Maniatis, P., Baker, M.: Secure history preservation through timeline entanglement. In: USENIX Security Symposium, pp. 297–312. USENIX (2002)Google Scholar
  26. Schneider, F.B.: Enforceable security policies. Information and System Security 3(1), 30–50 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vaughan, J.A., Jia, L., Mazurak, K., Zdancewic, S.: Evidence-based audit. In: CSF, pp. 177–191. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2008)Google Scholar
  28. Weitzner, D.J., Abelson, H., Berners-Lee, T., Feigenbaum, J., Hendler, J., Sussman, G.J.: Information accountability. Technical Report MIT-CSAIL-TR-2007-034, MIT (June 2007), http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/37600
  29. Yumerefendi, A.R., Chase, J.S.: Trust but verify: accountability for network services. In: EW11: Proceedings of the 11th workshop on ACM SIGOPS European workshop, p. 37. ACM, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yumerefendi, A.R., Chase, J.S.: Strong accountability for network storage. Trans. Storage 3(3), 11 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Radha Jagadeesan
    • 1
  • Alan Jeffrey
    • 2
  • Corin Pitcher
    • 1
  • James Riely
    • 1
  1. 1.School of ComputingDePaul UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Bell Labs, Alcatel–LucentUSA

Personalised recommendations