Towards Usable Generation and Enforcement of Trust Evidence from Programmers’ Intent

  • Michael Huth
  • Jim Huan-Pu Kuo
  • Angela Sasse
  • Iacovos Kirlappos
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8030)


Programmers develop code with a sense of purpose and with expectations on how units of code should interact with other units of code. But this intent of programmers is typically implicit and undocumented, goes beyond considerations of functional correctness, and may depend on trust assumptions that programmers make. At present, neither programming languages nor development environments offer a means of articulating such intent in a manner that could be used for controlling whether software executions meet such intentions and their associated expectations. We here study how extant research on trust can inform approaches to articulating programmers’ intent so that it may help with creating trust evidence for more trustworthy interaction of software units.


Composition Operator Usable Generation Java Modeling Language Trust Mechanic Method Invocation 
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.
    Agha, G.A.: ACTORS - a model of concurrent computation in distributed systems. MIT Press series in artificial intelligence. MIT Press (1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Flechais, I., Riegelsberger, J., Angela Sasse, M.: Divide and conquer: the role of trust and assurance in the design of secure socio-technical systems. In: Proceedings of the 2005 Workshop on New Security Paradigms, NSPW 2005, pp. 33–41. ACM, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giddens, A.: The Consequences of Modernity. Polity, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Handy, C.: Trust and the virtual organization. Harvard Business Review 73(3), 40–50 (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kirlappos, I., Angela Sasse, M., Harvey, N.: Why trust seals don’t work: A study of user perceptions and behavior. In: Katzenbeisser, S., Weippl, E., Camp, L.J., Volkamer, M., Reiter, M., Zhang, X. (eds.) Trust 2012. LNCS, vol. 7344, pp. 308–324. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kumari, P., Pretschner, A.: Model-based usage control policy derivation. In: Jürjens, J., Livshits, B., Scandariato, R. (eds.) ESSoS 2013. LNCS, vol. 7781, pp. 58–74. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leavens, G.T., Cheon, Y., Clifton, C., Ruby, C., Cok, D.R.: How the design of JML accommodates both runtime assertion checking and formal verification. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2002. LNCS, vol. 2852, pp. 262–284. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mayer, R., Davis, J., Schoorman, F.D.: An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review 20(3), 709–734 (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moses, T.: eXtensible Access Control Markup Language (XACML) Version 2.0. OASIS Standards Committee (February 2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nielson, F., Nielson, H.R., Hankin, C.: Principles of program analysis (2. corr. print). Springer (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Riegelsberger, J., Angela Sasse, M., McCarthy, J.D.: The mechanics of trust: A framework for research and design. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 62(3), 381–422 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schneier, B.: Lairs and Outliers: Enabling the Trust and Society Needs to Thrive. John Wiley & Sons (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Huth
    • 1
  • Jim Huan-Pu Kuo
    • 1
  • Angela Sasse
    • 2
  • Iacovos Kirlappos
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ComputingImperial College LondonLondonUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity College LondonLondonUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations