Advertisement

Very Static Enforcement of Dynamic Policies

  • Bart van Delft
  • Sebastian Hunt
  • David Sands
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9036)

Abstract

Security policies are naturally dynamic. Reflecting this, there has been a growing interest in studying information-flow properties which change during program execution, including concepts such as declassification, revocation, and role-change.

A static verification of a dynamic information flow policy, from a semantic perspective, should only need to concern itself with two things: 1) the dependencies between data in a program, and 2) whether those dependencies are consistent with the intended flow policies as they change over time. In this paper we provide a formal ground for this intuition. We present a straightforward extension to the principal flow-sensitive type system introduced by Hunt and Sands (POPL ’06, ESOP ’11) to infer both end-to-end dependencies and dependencies at intermediate points in a program. This allows typings to be applied to verification of both static and dynamic policies. Our extension preserves the principal type system’s distinguishing feature, that type inference is independent of the policy to be enforced: a single, generic dependency analysis (typing) can be used to verify many different dynamic policies of a given program, thus achieving a clean separation between (1) and (2).

We also make contributions to the foundations of dynamic information flow. Arguably, the most compelling semantic definitions for dynamic security conditions in the literature are phrased in the so-called knowledge-based style. We contribute a new definition of knowledge-based progress insensitive security for dynamic policies. We show that the new definition avoids anomalies of previous definitions and enjoys a simple and useful characterisation as a two-run style property.

Keywords

Type System Security Policy Program Variable Program Point Initial Store 
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. [AB04]
    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. [AC12]
    Askarov, A., Chong, C.: Learning is change in knowledge: Knowledge-based security for dynamic policies. In: Computer Security Foundations Symposium, pp. 308–322. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  3. [AHSS08]
    Askarov, A., Hunt, S., Sabelfeld, A., Sands, D.: Termination-Insensitive Noninterference Leaks More Than Just a Bit. In: Jajodia, S., Lopez, J. (eds.) ESORICS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5283, pp. 333–348. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [AR80]
    Andrews, G.R., Reitman, R.P.: An axiomatic approach to information flow in programs. TOPLAS 2(1), 56–75 (1980)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. [AS07]
    Askarov, A., Sabelfeld, A.: Gradual release: Unifying declassification, encryption and key release policies. In: Proc. IEEE Symp. on Security and Privacy, pp. 207–221 (May 2007)Google Scholar
  6. [BBL94]
    Banâtre, J.-P., Bryce, C., Le Métayer, D.: Compile-time detection of information flow in sequential programs. In: Gollmann, D. (ed.) ESORICS 1994. LNCS, vol. 875, pp. 55–73. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [BDLG11]
    Balliu, M., Dam, M., Le Guernic, G.: Epistemic temporal logic for information flow security. In: Programming Languages and Analysis for Security, PLAS 2011, pp. 6:1–6:12. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  8. [BDLG12]
    Balliu, M., Dam, M., Le Guernic, G.: Encover: Symbolic exploration for information flow security. In: 2012 IEEE 25th Computer Security Foundations Symposium (CSF), pp. 30–44. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  9. [BNR08]
    Banerjee, A., Naumann, D., Rosenberg, S.: Expressive declassification policies and modular static enforcement. In: Proc. IEEE Symp. on Security and Privacy, pp. 339–353. IEEE Computer Society (2008)Google Scholar
  10. [BS09]
    Broberg, N., David, S.: Flow-Sensitive Semantics for Dynamic Information Flow Policies. In: Programming Languages and Analysis for Security (2009)Google Scholar
  11. [BS10]
    Broberg, N., Sands, D.: Paralocks – role-based information flow control and beyond. In: Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  12. [BvDS13]
    Broberg, N., van Delft, B., Sands, D.: Paragon for Practical Programming with Information-Flow Control. In: Shan, C.-c. (ed.) APLAS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8301, pp. 217–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [CHH02]
    Clark, D., Hankin, C., Hunt, S.: Information flow for Algol-like languages. Journal of Computer Languages 28(1), 3–28 (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. [DD77]
    Denning, D.E., Denning, P.J.: Certification of programs for secure information flow. Comm. of the ACM 20(7), 504–513 (1977)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. [DHS15]
    van Delft, B., Hunt, S., Sands, D.: Very Static Enforcement of Dynamic Policies. Technical Report 1501.02633, arXiv (2015)Google Scholar
  16. [GM82]
    Goguen, J.A., Meseguer, J.: Security policies and security models. In: Proc. IEEE Symp. on Security and Privacy, April 1982, pp. 11–20 (April 1982)Google Scholar
  17. [GM84]
    Goguen, J.A., Meseguer, J.: Unwinding and inference control. In: Proc. IEEE Symp. on Security and Privacy, pp. 75–86 (April 1984)Google Scholar
  18. [HS06]
    Hunt, S., Sands, D.: On Flow-sensitive Security Types. In: Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 79–90. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  19. [HS11]
    Hunt, S., Sands, D.: From Exponential to Polynomial-Time Security Typing via Principal Types. In: Barthe, G. (ed.) ESOP 2011. LNCS, vol. 6602, pp. 297–316. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [HTHZ05]
    Hicks, M., Tse, S., Hicks, B., Zdancewic, S.: Dynamic updating of information-flow policies. In: Foundations of Computer Security Workshop, pp. 7–18 (2005)Google Scholar
  21. [Ind]
    Indus homepage, http://indus.projects.cis.ksu.edu/ (accessed: January 09, 2015)
  22. [JOA]
    JOANA homepage, http://pp.ipd.kit.edu/projects/joana/ (accessed: January 09, 2015)
  23. [SHTZ06]
    Swamy, N., Hicks, M., Tse, S., Zdancewic, S.: Managing Policy Updates in Security-Typed Languages. In: Proceedings of the 19th IEEE Workshop on Computer Security Foundations (2006)Google Scholar
  24. [SRMM11]
    Stefan, D., Russo, A., Mitchell, J.C., Mazières, D.: Flexible dynamic information flow control in Haskell. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM Symposium on Haskell (2011)Google Scholar
  25. [VSI96]
    Volpano, D., Smith, G., Irvine, C.: A sound type system for secure flow analysis. J. Computer Security 4(3), 167–187 (1996)Google Scholar
  26. [Zha12]
    Zhang, C.: Conditional Information Flow Policies and Unwinding Relations. In: Bruni, R., Sassone, V. (eds.) TGC 2011. LNCS, vol. 7173, pp. 227–241. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bart van Delft
    • 1
  • Sebastian Hunt
    • 2
  • David Sands
    • 1
  1. 1.Chalmers University of TechnologyGöteborgSweden
  2. 2.City University LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations