Enforceable Security Policies Revisited

  • David Basin
  • Vincent Jugé
  • Felix Klaedtke
  • Eugen Zălinescu
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7215)

Abstract

We revisit Schneider’s work on policy enforcement by execution monitoring. We overcome limitations of Schneider’s setting by distinguishing between system actions that are controllable by an enforcement mechanism and those actions that are only observable, that is, the enforcement mechanism cannot prevent their execution. For this refined setting, we give necessary and sufficient conditions on when a security policy is enforceable. To state these conditions, we generalize the standard notion of safety properties. Our classification of system actions also allows one, for example, to reason about the enforceability of policies that involve timing constraints. Furthermore, for different specification languages, we investigate the decision problem of whether a given policy is enforceable. We provide complexity results and show how to synthesize an enforcement mechanism from an enforceable policy.

Keywords

Temporal Logic Turing Machine Security Policy Safety Property Enforcement Mechanism 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Alpern, B., Schneider, F.B.: Defining liveness. Inform. Process. Lett. 21(4), 181–185 (1985)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A.: Logics and Models of Real Time: A Survey. In: Huizing, C., de Bakker, J.W., Rozenberg, G., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) REX 1991. LNCS, vol. 600, pp. 74–106. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A.: A really temporal logic. J. ACM 41(1), 181–203 (1994)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Basin, D., Harvan, M., Klaedtke, F., Zălinescu, E.: Monitoring usage-control policies in distributed systems. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning, pp. 88–95. IEEE Computer Society (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Basin, D., Klaedtke, F., Müller, S.: Monitoring security policies with metric first-order temporal logic. In: Proceedings of the 15th ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies, pp. 23–33. ACM Press (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Basin, D., Olderog, E.-R., Sevinç, P.E.: Specifying and analyzing security automata using CSP-OZ. In: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM Symposium on Information, Computer and Communications Security, pp. 70–81. ACM Press (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chang, E.Y., Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: Characterization of Temporal Property Classes. In: Kuich, W. (ed.) ICALP 1992. LNCS, vol. 623, pp. 474–486. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dax, C., Klaedtke, F., Lange, M.: On regular temporal logics with past. Acta Inform. 47(4), 251–277 (2010)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ehlers, R., Finkbeiner, B.: Reactive safety. In: Proceedings of 2nd International Symposium on Games, Logics and Formal Verification. Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 54, pp. 178–191 (2011), eptcs.org Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eisner, C., Fisman, D., Havlicek, J., Lustig, Y., McIsaac, A., Van Campenhout, D.: Reasoning with Temporal Logic on Truncated Paths. In: Hunt Jr., W.A., Somenzi, F. (eds.) CAV 2003. LNCS, vol. 2725, pp. 27–39. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Erlingsson, Ú.: The inlined reference monitor approach to security policy enforcement. PhD thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Erlingsson, Ú., Schneider, F.B.: SASI enforcement of security policies: A retrospective. In: Proceedings of the 1999 Workshop on New Security Paradigms, pp. 87–95. ACM Press (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Erlingsson, Ú., Schneider, F.B.: IRM enforcement of Java stack inspection. In: Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 246–255. IEEE Computer Society (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Falcone, Y., Mounier, L., Fernandez, J.-C., Richier, J.-L.: Runtime enforcement monitors: composition, synthesis, and enforcement abilities. Form. Methods Syst. Des. 38(2), 223–262 (2011)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fong, P.W.: Access control by tracking shallow execution history. In: Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 43–55. IEEE Computer Society (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S.: Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W.H. Freeman and Company (1979)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Garg, D., Jia, L., Datta, A.: Policy auditing over incomplete logs: Theory, implementation and applications. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 151–162. ACM Press (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hamlen, K.W., Morrisett, G., Schneider, F.B.: Computability classes for enforcement mechanisms. ACM Trans. Progr. Lang. Syst. 28(1), 175–205 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Henzinger, T.A.: Sooner is safer than later. Inform. Process. Lett. 43(3), 135–141 (1992)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hopcroft, J.E., Ullman, J.D.: Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages and Computation. Addison-Wesley (1979)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jones, N.D.: Space-bounded reducibility among combinatorial problems. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 11(1), 68–85 (1975)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Koymans, R.: Specifying real-time properties with metric temporal logic. Real-Time Syst. 2(4), 255–299 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lamport, L.: Proving the correctness of multiprocess programs. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 3(2), 125–143 (1977)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ligatti, J., Bauer, L., Walker, D.: Edit automata: enforcement mechanisms for run-time security policies. Int. J. Inf. Secur. 4(1-2), 2–16 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ligatti, J., Bauer, L., Walker, D.: Run-time enforcement of nonsafety policies. ACM Trans. Inform. Syst. Secur. 12(3) (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ligatti, J., Reddy, S.: A Theory of Runtime Enforcement, with Results. In: Gritzalis, D., Preneel, B., Theoharidou, M. (eds.) ESORICS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6345, pp. 87–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Paul, M., Siegert, H.J., Alford, M.W., Ansart, J.P., Hommel, G., Lamport, L., Liskov, B., Mullery, G.P., Schneider, F.B.: Distributed Systems—Methods and Tools for Specification: An Advanced Course. LNCS, vol. 190. Springer, Heidelberg (1985)MATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: Proceedings of the 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 46–57. IEEE Computer Society (1977)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schneider, F.B.: Enforceable security policies. ACM Trans. Inform. Syst. Secur. 3(1), 30–50 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sistla, A.P., Clarke, E.M.: The complexity of propositional linear temporal logic. J. ACM 32(3), 733–749 (1985)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vardi, M.Y., Wolper, P.: Reasoning about infinite computations. Inf. Comput. 115(1), 1–37 (1994)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Viswanathan, M.: Foundations for the run-time analysis of software systems. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Basin
    • 1
  • Vincent Jugé
    • 2
  • Felix Klaedtke
    • 1
  • Eugen Zălinescu
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Information SecurityETH ZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.MINES ParisTechFrance

Personalised recommendations