skip to main content
article
Free Access

A logic for reasoning about security

Published:01 August 1992Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

A formal framework called Security Logic (SL) is developed for specifying and reasoning about security policies and for verifying that system designs adhere to such policies. Included in this modal logic framework are definitions of knowledge, permission, and obligation. Permission is used to specify secrecy policies and obligation to specify integrity policies. The combination of policies is addressed and examples based on policies from the current literature are given.

References

  1. 1 ASHEROFT, E. A., ANn JAGANNATHAN, R. Operator nets. In IFIP TC-IO Conference on F~fth Generation Computer Architectures. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2 BEN-ARI, M., MANNA, Z., AND PNUELI, A. The temporal logic of branching time. In 8th Annual ACM Sympostum on Principles of Programming Languages, ACM, New York, 1981, 164-176. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 3 BURROWS, M., AB~I, M., ~x'~D NEED~M, R. A logic of authenticatmn. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 8, i (1990), 18-36. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 4 BIB& K. J. Integrity considerations for secure computer systems. Tech. Rep. TR-3153, MITRE Corp., April 1977.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 5 BELL, D. E., AND LAPADULA, L.J. Secure computer systems: Mathematical foundations and model. Tech. Rep., MITRE Corp., Bedford, Mass., 1974.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. 6 BURROWS, M., NEEDHXM, R., AND ABAm, M. Authentication: A practical study in belief and action. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Knowledge (Pacific Grove, Calif., 1988). ACM, New York, 1988, 325 342. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. 7 COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT, DND. Canadian Trusted Computer Product Evaluation Criteria Workshop (Ottawa, Ont., Aug. 1988).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. 8 CLARK, D. n., AND WILSON, D. R. A comparison of commercial and military computer security policies. In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (Oakland, Calif., April 1987). IEEE, New York, 1987, 184-194.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. 9 DENNING, D. E.A lattice model of secure information flow. Corrzmun. ACM 19, 5 (May 1976), 236-243. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. 10 EMERSON, E. A., AND HALPERN, J.Y. "Sometimes" and "not never" revisited. In 9th Annual ACM Symposium on Prznciples of Programming Languages. ACM, New York, 1982, 127-139.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. 11 GASSER, M. Building a Secure Computer System. Van Nostrand, New York, 1988. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. 12 GOGUEN, J. A., AND MESEGUER, J. SecuriW policies and security models. In IEEE Symposium on Securzty and Privacy (Oakland, Calif., April 1982). IEEE, New York, 1982, 11-20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. 13 GLASGOW. J. I., AND MACEWEN, G.H. The development and proof of a formal specification for a multilevel secure system. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 5, 2 (May 1987), 151 184. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. 14 GLASGOW, J. I., AND MACEWEN, G. H. Reasoning about knowledge in multilevel secure distributed systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Securtty and Privacy (Oakland, Calif., 1988). IEEE, New York, 1988, 122-128.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. 15 GLASGOW, J. I., AND MACEWEN, G.H. Obligation as the basis of integrity specification. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Securzty and Privacy (Oakland, Calif.,), IEEE, New York, 1982-91.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. 16 GLASGOW, J. I., AND MACEWEN, G.H. Obligation as the basis of integrity specification. In Proceedings of the Computer Security Foundattons Workshop (Franconia, N.H.). MITRE Corp., 1988-91.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. 17 GLASGOW, J. I., AND MACEWEN, G.H. Obligation as the basis of integrity specification. In Proceedings of the Computer Security Foundattons Workshop (Franconia, N. H., June 1989). MITRE Corp., 1989, 64-70.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. 18 GLASGOW, J. I., AND MACEWEN, G.H. An operator net model for distributed systems. J. Distrtbuted Syst. 3, 4 (Sept. 1989), 196-209.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. 19 GLASGOW, J. I., ANn MACEWEN, G.H. A logic for reasoning about security. In Proceedings of the Computer Security Foundations Workshop (Franconia, N.H., June 1990). IEEE, New York, 1990.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. 20 GLASGOW, J. I., MACEWEN, G. H., AND PANANGADEN, P. Reasoning about knowledge and permission in secure distributed systems. In Proceedtngs of the Computer Security Foundations Workshop (Franconia, N.H., 1988). IEEE, New York, 1988, 139 146. Also appears in IEEE Cipher.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. 21 GLASGOW, J. I., MACEWEN, G. H., AND PANANGADEN, P. Security by permission in databases. In Database Security H: Status and Prospects. Elsevier North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1988, 197-205.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. 22 GUTTMAN, J. D., AND NADEL, M. E. What needs security? In Proceedings of the Computer Security Foundations Workshop (Franconia, N.H., June 1988), 34-57.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. 23 HALPERN, J. Reasoning about knowledge. In Annual Reviews of Computer Science, Annual Reviews Inc., 1987, 21-35.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. 24 HINTAKKA, J. Knowledge and Belief. Cornell University Press, 1962.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. 25 HALPERN, J. Y., AND MOSES, Y. Knowledge and common knowledge in a distributed environment. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Distrtbuted Computing. 1984, 50-61. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. 26 JOHNSON, D. M., ANn THA~R, F.J. Stating security requirements with tolerable sets. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 6, 3 (Aug. 1988), 284-295. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. 27 JOHNSON, D. M., AND THAYER, F.J. Security and the composition of machines. In Proceedings of the Computer Security Foundations Workshop (Franconia, N.H., June 1988), 72 89.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. 28 KmPKE, S. Semantical considerations of modal logic. Acta Philosophica Fennica 16 (1963), 83 94.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. 29 LAMPORT, L. Sometimes is sometimes not never. In Proceedings of 7th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, ACM, New York, 1980, 174-185. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. 30 LANDWEHR, C.E. Formal models for computer security. ACM Comput. Surv. 13, 3 (Sept. 1981), 247-278. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. 31 LUNT, T. F. ET AL. The Seaview formal security policy model. Tech. Rep., SRI International, Computer Science Lab., Menlo Park, Calif, Feb. 1989.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. 32 LUNT, T. F. ET AL. The Seaview security model. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. SE-16, 6 (June 1990). Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. 33 MECULLOUGH, A. D. Specifications for multi-level security and a hook-up property. In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (Oakland, Calif., April 1987), IEEE, New York, 1987, 161-166.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. 34 MCCULLOUGH, A. D. Covert channels and degrees of insecurity. In Proceedings of the Computer Security Foundations Workshop (Franconia, N.H., June 1988), i 33.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. 35 MCCULLOUGH, A. D. Non-interference and the composability of security properties. In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (Oakland, Calif., April 1988), IEEE, New York, 1988, 177-186.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. 36 MCLEAN, J. Reasoning about security models. In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (Oakland, Calif., April 1987), IEEE, New York, 1987, 123-131.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. 37 MCLEAN, J. The algebra of security. In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (Oakland, Calif., April 1988), IEEE, New York, 1988, 2-7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. 38 MOSER, L. A logic of knowledge and belief for reasoning about computer security. In Proceedings of the Computer Security Foundattons Workshop H (Franconia, N.H., 1989), 57-63.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. 39 MAcEWEN, G. H., POON, V. W. W., AND GLASGOW, J.I. A model for multilevel security based on operator nets. In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (Oakland, Calif., April 1987), IEEE, New York, 1987, 150-160.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. 40 NATIONAL COMPUTER SECURITY CENTER. Workshop on Integrity Policy in Computer Information Systems (Waltham, Mass., Oct. 1987).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. 41 Proceedings of the Natzonal Computer Security Conference, Dept. of Defense, 1984-88.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. 42 PNUELI, A. The temporal logic of concurrent programs. Theor. Comput. Sc~. 13 (1981), 45 60.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. 43 PRIOR, A. Tzme and Modality. Oxford University Press, 1957.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. 44 RANGAN, P.V. An axiomatic basis of trust in distributed systems. In Proceedings of the 1988 IEEE Computer Society Symposium on Security and Prwacy (Oakland, Calif., 1988), 204-211.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. 45 RUSHBY, J.M. Design and verification of secure systems. ACM SIGOPS 15, 5 (Dec. 1981), 12-21. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. 46 SUTHERLAND, A. D. A model of information. In Procee&ngs of 9th Natwnal Computer Security Conference (Gaithersburg, Md., Sept. 1986), Dept. of Defense, 175-183.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A logic for reasoning about security

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in

            Full Access

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader