Anonymity Preserving Techniques in Trust Negotiations
Trust negotiation between two subjects require each one proving its properties to the other. Each subject specifies disclosure policies stating the types of credentials and attributes the counterpart has to provide to obtain a given resource. The counterpart, in response, provides a disclosure set containing the necessary credentials and attributes. If the counterpart wants to remain anonymous, its disclosure sets should not contain identity revealing information. In this paper, we propose anonymization techniques using which a subject can transform its disclosure set into an anonymous one. Anonymization transforms a disclosure set into an alternative anonymous one whose information content is different from the original one. This alternative disclosure set may no longer satisfy the original disclosure policy causing the trust negotiation to fail. To address this problem, we propose that trust negotiation requirements be expressed at a more abstract level using property-based policies. Property-based policies state the high-level properties that a counterpart has to provide to obtain a resource. A property-based policy can be implemented by a number of disclosure policies. Although these disclosure policies implement the same high-level property-based policy, they require different sets of credentials. Allowing the subject to satisfy any policy from the set of disclosure policies, increases not only the chances of a trust negotiation succeeding but also the probability of ensuring anonymity.
KeywordsDisclosure Policy Concept Graph Deductive Database Translation Function Trust Negotiation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Bertino, E., Ferrari, E., Squicciarini, A.: Trust Negotiations: Concepts, Systems and Languages. IEEE-CISE, Computing and Science Engineering (to appear)Google Scholar
- 2.Bertino, E., Ferrari, E., Squicciarini, A.: Trust-X a Peer to Peer Framework for Trust Establishment. IEEE TKDE, Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (to appear)Google Scholar
- 5.Bonatti, P., Samarati, P.: Regulating Access Services and Information Release on the Web. In: 7th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Athens, Greece (November 2000)Google Scholar
- 8.Iyengar, V.S.: Transforming Data to Satisfy Privacy Constraints. In: Eighth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Edmonton, Canada (July 2002)Google Scholar
- 9.Yu, T., Seamons, K.E., Winslett, M.: Requirements for Policy Languages for Trust Negotiation. In: Third IEEE International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks, Monterey, CA (June 2002)Google Scholar
- 10.Naor, M.: Bit commitment using pseudo randomness. In: Brassard, G. (ed.) CRYPTO 1989. LNCS, vol. 435, pp. 128–136. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)Google Scholar
- 11.Samarati, P., Sweeney, L.: Generalizing Data to Provide Anonymity when Disclosing Information. In: Seventeenth ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, Seattle, Washington. ACM Press, New York (1998)Google Scholar
- 13.Seamons, K.E., Yu, T., Winslett, M.: Supporting Structured Credentials and Sensitive Policies through Interoperable Strategies for Automated Trust Negotiation. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security 1(6) (February 2003)Google Scholar
- 15.Winsborough, M., Li, N.: Safety in Automated Trust Negotiation. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, CA (May 2004)Google Scholar
- 16.Yu, T., Winslett, M.: A Unified Scheme for Resource Protection in Automated Trust Negotiation. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, CA (May 2003)Google Scholar