Advertisement

Deciding Selective Declassification of Petri Nets

  • Eike Best
  • Philippe Darondeau
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7215)

Abstract

This paper considers declassification, as effected by downgrading actions D, in the context of intransitive non-interference encountered in systems that consist of high-level (secret) actions H and low-level (public) actions L. In a previous paper, we have shown the decidability of a strong form of declassification, by which D contains only a single action d ∈ D declassifying all H actions at once. The present paper continues this study by considering selective declassification, where each transition d ∈ D can declassify a subset H(d) of H. The decidability of this more flexible, application-prone declassification framework is proved in the context of (possibly unbounded) Petri nets with possibly infinite state spaces.

Keywords

Security Property Regular Language Visible Transition Security Domain Invisible Action 
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.
    Best, E., Darondeau, P., Gorrieri, R.: On the Decidability of Non Interference over Unbounded Petri Nets. In: Chatzikokolakis, K., Cortier, V. (eds.) Proceedings 8th International Workshop on Security Issues in Concurrency, SecCo. EPTCS, vol. 51, pp. 16–33 (2010), http://dx.doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.51.2
  2. 2.
    Busi, N., Gorrieri, R.: Structural Non-Interference in Elementary and Trace Nets. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 19(6), 1065–1090 (2009), doi:10.1017/S0960129509990120MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dam, M.: Decidability and Proof Systems for Language-based Noninterference Relations. In: Proc. POPL 2006, pp. 67–78 (2006), doi:10.1145/1111037.1111044Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D’Souza, D., Holla, R., Kulkarni, J., Ramesh, R.K., Sprick, B.: On the Decidability of Model-Checking Information Flow Properties. In: Sekar, R., Pujari, A.K. (eds.) ICISS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5352, pp. 26–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gorrieri, R., Vernali, M.: On Intransitive Non-interference in Some Models of Concurrency. In: Aldini, A., Gorrieri, R. (eds.) FOSAD 2011. LNCS, vol. 6858, pp. 125–151. Springer, Heidelberg (2011), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23082-0_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haigh, T.J., Young, W.D.: Extending the noninterference versions of MLS for SAT. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering SE-13(2), 141–150 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mantel, H.: Possibilistic Definitions of Security - an Assembly Kit. In: Proc. of the 13th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop, Cambridge, UK, July 3-5, pp. 185–199 (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mantel, H.: A Uniform Framework for the Formal Specification and Verification of Information Flow Security. PhD Thesis, Universität des Saarlandes (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mantel, H.: Information Flow Control and Applications - Bridging a Gap. In: Oliveira, J.N., Zave, P. (eds.) FME 2001. LNCS, vol. 2021, pp. 153–172. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    van der Meyden, R.: What, Indeed, Is Intransitive Noninterference? In: Biskup, J., López, J. (eds.) ESORICS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4734, pp. 235–250. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wimmel, H.: Entscheidbarkeit bei Petri Netzen - Überblick und Kompendium, p. 239. Springer, Heidelberg (2008), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85471-5 zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eike Best
    • 1
  • Philippe Darondeau
    • 2
  1. 1.Parallel Systems, Department of Computing ScienceCarl von Ossietzky Universität OldenburgOldenburgGermany
  2. 2.INRIA, Centre Rennes - Bretagne Atlantique Campus de BeaulieuRennes CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations