Temporal Logic-Based Specification and Verification of Trust Models

  • Peter Herrmann
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3986)


Mutual trust is essential in performing economical transactions. In modern internet-based businesses, however, traditional trust gaining mechanisms cannot be used and new ways to build trust between e-business partners have to be found. In consequence, a lot of models describing trust and the mechanisms to build it were developed. Unfortunately, most of these models neither provide the right formalism to model relevant aspects of the trust gaining process (e.g., context and time of a trust-related interaction), nor do they allow refinement proofs verifying that a trust management tool implements a certain trust model. Therefore, we propose the temporal logic-based specification and verification technique cTLA which provides a formalism enabling to model context- and time-related aspects of a trust building process. Moreover, cTLA facilitates formal refinement proofs. In this paper, we discuss the application of cTLA to describe trust purposes by means of simple example systems which are used to decide about the application of certain policies based on the reputation of a party. In particular, we introduce a basic and a refined reputation system and sketch the proof that the refined system is a correct realization of the simple one.


Trust Model Process Type Trust Management Reputation System Process Instance 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    McKnight, D.H., Chervany, N.L.: The Meanings of Trust. Working Paper Series 96–04, University of Minnesota — Carlson School of Management (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gambetta, D.: Can We Trust Trust? In: Gambetta, D. (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, pp. 213–238. Basil Blackwell, Malden (1990)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jøsang, A.: The right type of trust for distributed systems. In: Proc. UCLA New Security Paradigms Workshop, Lake Arrowhead, pp. 119–131. ACM, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Falcone, R., Castelfranchi, C.: The socio-cognitive dynamics of trust: Does trust create trust? In: Falcone, R., Singh, M., Tan, Y.-H. (eds.) AA-WS 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2246, pp. 55–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Falcone, R., Castelfranchi, C.: Social Trust: A Cognitive Approach. In: Castelfranchi, C., Tan, Y.H. (eds.) Trust and Deception in Virtual Societies, pp. 55–90. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jøsang, A., Keser, C., Dimitrakos, T.: Can We Manage Trust? In: Herrmann, P., Issarny, V., Shiu, S.C.K. (eds.) iTrust 2005. LNCS, vol. 3477, pp. 93–107. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cheskin Research and Studio Archetype/Sapient: eCommerce Trust Study (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mezzetti, N.: A Socially Inspired Reputation Model. In: Katsikas, S.K., Gritzalis, S., López, J. (eds.) EuroPKI 2004. LNCS, vol. 3093, pp. 191–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jøsang, A.: A Logic for Uncertain Probabilities. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 9, 279–311 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jones, A.J.I., Firozabadi, B.S.: On the Characterisation of a Trusting Agent — Aspects of a Formal Approach. In: Castelfranchi, C., Tan, Y.H. (eds.) Trust and Deception in Virtual Societies, pp. 157–168. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Falcone, R., Pezzulo, G., Castelfranchi, C.: A fuzzy approach to a belief-based trust computation. In: Falcone, R., et al. (eds.) AAMAS 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2631, pp. 73–86. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Blaze, M., Feigenbaum, J., Lacy, J.: Decentralized Trust Management. In: Proc. 17th Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, pp. 164–173. IEEE, Los Alamitos (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grandison, T., Sloman, M.: Specifying and Analysing Trust for Internet Applications. In: Proc. 2nd IFIP Conference on E-Commerce, E-Business & E-Government (I3E), Lisbon, pp. 145–157. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Abdul-Rahman, A., Hailes, S.: Supporting Trust in Virtual Communities. In: Proc. 33rd Hawaii International Conference, Maui, Hawaii, vol. 6. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Herrmann, P., Krumm, H.: A Framework for Modeling Transfer Protocols. Computer Networks 34, 317–337 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lamport, L.: Specifying Systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vissers, C.A., Scollo, G., van Sinderen, M.: Architecture and specification style in formal descriptions of distributed systems. In: Agarwal, S., Sabnani, K. (eds.) Proc. 8th IFIP International Conference on Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification (PSTV 1988), pp. 189–204. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1988)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Herrmann, P., Krumm, H.: A Framework for the Hazard Analysis of Chemical Plants. In: Proc. 11th IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Aided Control System Design (CACSD 2000), Anchorage, IEEE CSS, pp. 35–41. Omnipress (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kurki-Suonio, R.: A Practical Theory of Reactive Systems — Incremental Modeling of Dynamic Behaviors. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)MATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jøsang, A., Knapskog, S.J.: A metric for trusted systems. In: Proc. 21st National Security Conference, NSA (1998)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Abadi, M., Lamport, L.: An old-fashioned recipe for real time. In: Huizing, C., et al. (eds.) REX 1991. LNCS, vol. 600. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Abadi, M., Lamport, L.: The Existence of Refinement Mappings. Theoretical Computer Science 82, 253–284 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Herrmann, P.: Formal Security Policy Verification of Distributed Component-Structured Software. In: König, H., Heiner, M., Wolisz, A. (eds.) FORTE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2767, pp. 257–272. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Herrmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Telematics DepartmentNorwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations