Taking into Account Functional Models in the Validation of IS Security Policies

  • Yves Ledru
  • Akram Idani
  • Jérémy Milhau
  • Nafees Qamar
  • Régine Laleau
  • Jean-Luc Richier
  • Mohamed-Amine Labiadh
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 83)


Designing a security policy for an information system (IS) is a non-trivial task. Variants of the RBAC model can be used to express such policies as access-control rules associated to constraints. In this paper, we advocate that currently available tools do not take sufficiently into account the functional description of the application and its impact on authorisation constraints and dynamic aspects of security. We suggest to translate both security and functional models into a formal language, such as B, whose analysis and animation tools will help validate a larger set of security scenarios. We show how various kinds of constraints can be expressed and animated in this context.


RBAC authorisation constraints validation 


  1. 1.
    Ferraiolo, D.F., Kuhn, D.R., Chandramouli, R.: Role-Based Access Control. Computer Security Series. Artech House, Boston (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basin, D.A., Doser, J., Lodderstedt, T.: Model driven security: From UML models to access control infrastructures. ACM Transaction of Software Engineering Methodology 15(1), 39–91 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clark, D.D., Wilson, D.R.: A comparison of commercial and military computer security policies. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 184–195 (1987)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fernández, E.B.: A methodology for secure software design. In: Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Software Engineering Research and Practice, SERP 2004, pp. 130–136. CSREA Press (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jürjens, J.: Secure Systems Development with UML. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abrial, J.: The B-Book. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Warmer, J.B., Kleppe, A.G.: The Object Constraint Language: Precise Modeling With UML. Addison-Wesley, London (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gogolla, M., Büttner, F., Richters, M.: USE: A UML-based specification environment for validating UML and OCL. Sci. Comput. Program. 69(1-3), 27–34 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sohr, K., Drouineaud, M., Ahn, G.J., Gogolla, M.: Analyzing and managing role-based access control policies. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 20(7), 924–939 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ahn, G., Hu, H.: Towards realizing a formal RBAC model in real systems. In: 12th ACM Symp. on Access Control Models and Technologies. ACM Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ray, I., Li, N., France, R.: Using UML to visualize role-based access-control constraints. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies, pp. 115–124. ACM Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jackson, D.: Alloy: A Lightweight Object Modelling Notation. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 11(2), 256–290 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Power, D., Slaymaker, M., Simpson, A.: On the modelling and analysis of amazon web services access policies. In: Frappier, M., Glässer, U., Khurshid, S., Laleau, R., Reeves, S. (eds.) ABZ 2010. LNCS, vol. 5977, pp. 394–394. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zao, J., Wee, H., Chu, J., Jackson, D.: RBAC Schema Verification Using Lightweight Formal Model and Constraint Analysis. In: Proceedings of 8th ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schaad, A., Moffett, J.D.: A lightweight approach to specification and analysis of role-based access control extensions. In: Proc. of 7th SACMAT. ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yu, L., France, R., Ray, I., Ghosh, S.: A Rigorous Approach to Uncovering Security Policy Violations in UML Designs. In: Int. Conf. on Engineering Complex Computer Systems. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Toahchoodee, M., Ray, I., Anastasakis, K., Georg, G., Bordbar, B.: Ensuring spatio-temporal access control for real-world applications. In: 14th ACM Symp. on Access Control Models and Technologies, SACMAT 2009. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Basin, D.A., Clavel, M., Doser, J., Egea, M.: Automated analysis of security-design models. Information & Software Technology 51(5), 815–831 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Autrel, F., Cuppens, F., Cuppens-Boulahia, N., Coma-Brebel, C.: MotOrBAC 2: a security policy tool. In: SARSSI 2008: 3e Conf. sur la Sécurité des Architectures Réseaux et des Systèmes d’Information, (Télécom Bretagne) (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mammar, A., Laleau, R.: From a B formal specification to an executable code: application to the relational database domain. Inf. Softw. Technol. 48, 253–279 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Snook, C., Butler, M.: UML-B: Formal modeling and design aided by UML. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering Methodology 15(1), 92–122 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leuschel, M., Butler, M.J.: ProB: an automated analysis toolset for the B method. STTT 10(2), 185–203 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Idani, A., Labiadh, M.A., Ledru, Y.: Infrastructure dirigée par les modèles pour une intégration adaptable et évolutive de UML et B. Ingénierie des Systèmes d’Information 15(3), 87–112 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wildmoser, M., Nipkow, T.: Certifying Machine Code Safety: Shallow versus Deep Embedding. In: Slind, K., Bunker, A., Gopalakrishnan, G. (eds.) TPHOLs 2004. LNCS, vol. 3223, pp. 305–320. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Frappier, M., St-Denis, R.: EB 3: an entity-based black-box specification method for information systems. Software and Systems Modeling 2(2), 134–149 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: CSP–Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1985)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Frappier, M., Gervais, F., Laleau, R., Fraikin, B., St-Denis, R.: Extending statecharts with process algebra operators. Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering 4(3), 285–292 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Harel, D.: Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming 8(3), 231–274 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Frappier, M., Gervais, F., Laleau, R., Fraikin, B.: Algebraic state transition diagrams. Technical Report 24, Université de Sherbrooke, Département d’informatique, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada (June 2008)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Salabert, K., Milhau, J., et al.: iASTD: un interpréteur pour les ASTD. In: AFADL 2010, Poitiers, France (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Milhau, J., Frappier, M., Gervais, F., Laleau, R.: Systematic translation rules from astd to event-B. In: Méry, D., Merz, S. (eds.) IFM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6396, pp. 245–259. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yves Ledru
    • 1
  • Akram Idani
    • 1
  • Jérémy Milhau
    • 2
    • 3
  • Nafees Qamar
    • 1
  • Régine Laleau
    • 2
  • Jean-Luc Richier
    • 1
  • Mohamed-Amine Labiadh
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire d’Informatique de Grenoble UMR 5217UJF-Grenoble 1/Grenoble-INP/UPMF-Grenoble2/CNRSGrenobleFrance
  2. 2.LACL, IUT Sénart FontainebleauUniversité Paris-EstFontainebleauFrance
  3. 3.GRIL, Département InformatiqueUniversité de SherbrookeCanada

Personalised recommendations