Assigning Responsibility for Failed Obligations

Traditional security policies largely focus on access control. Though essential, access control is only one aspect of security. In particular, the correct behavior and reliable operation of a system depends not only on what users are permitted to do, but oftentimes on what users are required to do. Such obligatory actions are integral to the security procedures of many enterprises. Unlike access control, obligations assigned to individual users are often unenforceable, that is, the system cannot ensure that each obligation will be fulfilled. Accurately determining who was at fault when obligations are not met is essential for responding appropriately, be it in terms of modified trust relationships or other recourse. In this paper, based on a formal metamodel of obligations, we propose an approach for fault assessment through active online tracking of responsibilities and dependencies between obligations. We identify and formalize two key properties for the correct assessment of fault, and design responsibility assignment and fault assessment algorithms for a concrete yet general access control and obligation system.

[1]  Sushil Jajodia,et al.  Provisions and Obligations in Policy Management and Security Applications , 2002, VLDB.

[2]  Andreas Matheus,et al.  How to Declare Access Control Policies for XML Structured Information Objects using OASIS' eXtensible Access Control Markup Language (XACML) , 2005, Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[3]  Sushil Jajodia,et al.  Provisions and Obligations in Policy Rule Management , 2003, Journal of Network and Systems Management.

[4]  Pierangela Samarati,et al.  Authentication, access control, and audit , 1996, CSUR.

[5]  Paulo Ferreira,et al.  Obligation policies: an enforcement platform , 2005, Sixth IEEE International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks (POLICY'05).

[6]  Frank Dignum,et al.  Collective Obligations and Agents: Who Gets the Blame? , 2004, DEON.

[7]  Emil C. Lupu,et al.  The Ponder Policy Specification Language , 2001, POLICY.

[8]  Ting Yu,et al.  On the modeling and analysis of obligations , 2006, CCS '06.

[9]  Alexander Pretschner,et al.  On Obligations , 2005, ESORICS.

[10]  Sushil Jajodia,et al.  Obligation monitoring in policy management , 2002, Proceedings Third International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks.

[11]  Marco Casassa Mont,et al.  A Systemic Approach to Automate Privacy Policy Enforcement in Enterprises , 2006, Privacy Enhancing Technologies.

[12]  Joseph Y. Halpern,et al.  Responsibility and Blame: A Structural-Model Approach , 2003, IJCAI.

[13]  Timothy W. Finin,et al.  A policy language for a pervasive computing environment , 2003, Proceedings POLICY 2003. IEEE 4th International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks.

[14]  Martin Sailer,et al.  Monitoring and execution for contract compliance , 2005 .

[15]  Arnon Rosenthal,et al.  Specifying data sharing agreements , 2006, Seventh IEEE International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks (POLICY'06).

[16]  André Zúquete,et al.  SPL: An Access Control Language for Security Policies and Complex Constraints , 2001, NDSS.

[17]  Jeffrey M. Bradshaw,et al.  KAoS policy and domain services: toward a description-logic approach to policy representation, deconfliction, and enforcement , 2003, Proceedings POLICY 2003. IEEE 4th International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks.