The study of canonically complete attribute-based access control (ABAC) languages is relatively new. A canonically complete language is useful as it is functionally complete and provides a "normal form" for policies. However, previous work on canonically complete ABAC languages requires that the set of authorization decisions is totally ordered, which does not accurately reflect the intuition behind the use of the allow, deny and not-applicable decisions in access control. A number of recent ABAC languages use a fourth value and the set of authorization decisions is partially ordered. In this paper, we show how canonical completeness in multi-valued logics can be extended to the case where the set of truth values forms a lattice. This enables us to investigate the canonical completeness of logics having a partially ordered set of truth values, such as Belnap logic, and show that ABAC languages based on Belnap logic, such as PBel, are not canonically complete. We then construct a canonically complete four-valued logic using connections between the generators of the symmetric group (defined over the set of decisions) and unary operators in a canonically suitable logic. Finally, we propose a new authorization language @math , an extension of , which incorporates a lattice-ordered decision set and is canonically complete. We then discuss how the advantages of @math can be leveraged within the framework of XACML.
There are several tree-structured ABAC languages in the literature, including the OASIS standard XACML, PBel and PTaCL @cite_16 @cite_6 @cite_17 . A number of policy algebras have also been defined, which have some similarities with tree-structured languages. The semantics of a policy are defined in terms of sets of authorized and denied requests @cite_3 @cite_13 @cite_7 @cite_1 , and policy operators are defined in terms of set operations such as intersection and union. These languages differ to some extent in the choices of @math and the set of operators that are used. XACML, for example, defines several rule- and policy-combining algorithms (which may be regarded as binary operators), but no unary operators. An XACML rule is equivalent to an atomic policy. PBel and PTaCL prefer to define a rather small set of operators: PTaCL defines a single binary operator and two unary operators, whereas PBel defines two binary operators and a single unary operator. XACML and PTaCL use a three-valued decision set comprising @math , @math and @math , to which PBel adds @math , which represents conflict''.
@cite_7 @cite_1 @cite_3 @cite_6 @cite_16 @cite_13 @cite_17
2069728203 2057345152 1577867985 5684571 2048056473 2140730933
Collaborative and distributed applications, such as dynamic coalitions and virtualized grid computing, often require integrating access control policies of collaborating parties. Such an integration must be able to support complex authorization specifications and the fine-grained integration requirements that the various parties may have. In this paper, we introduce an algebra for fine-grained integration of sophisticated policies. The algebra, which consists of three binary and two unary operations, is able to support the specification of a large variety of integration constraints. To assess the expressive power of our algebra, we introduce a notion of completeness and prove that our algebra is complete with respect to this notion. We then propose a framework that uses the algebra for the fine-grained integration of policies expressed in XACML. We also present a methodology for generating the actual integrated XACML policy, based on the notion of Multi-Terminal Binary Decision Diagrams. Despite considerable advancements in the area of access control and authorization languages, current approaches to enforcing access control are all based on monolithic and complete specifications. This assumption is too restrictive when access control restrictions to be enforced come from the combination of different policy specifications, each possibly under the control of independent authorities, and where the specifics of some component policies may not even be known apriori. Turning individual specifications into a coherent policy to be fed into the access control system requires a nontrivial combination and translation process. This article addresses the problem of combining authorization specifications that may be independently stated, possibly in different languages and according to different policies. We propose an algebra of security policies together with its formal semantics and illustrate how to formulate complex policies in the algebra and reason about them. A translation of policy expressions into equivalent logic programs is illustrated, which provides the basis for the implementation of the algebra. The algebra's expressiveness is analyzed through a comparison with first-order logic. Many languages and algebras have been proposed in recent years for the specification of authorization policies. For some proposals, such as XACML, the main motivation is to address real-world requirements, typically by providing a complex policy language with somewhat informal evaluation methods; others try to provide a greater degree of formality --- particularly with respect to policy evaluation --- but support far fewer features. In short, there are very few proposals that combine a rich set of language features with a well-defined semantics, and even fewer that do this for authorization policies for attribute-based access control in open environments. In this paper, we decompose the problem of policy specification into two distinct sub-languages: the policy target language (PTL) for target specification, which determines when a policy should be evaluated; and the policy composition language (PCL) for building more complex policies from existing ones. We define syntax and semantics for two such languages and demonstrate that they can be both simple and expressive. PTaCL, the language obtained by combining the features of these two sub-languages, supports the specification of a wide range of policies. However, the power of PTaCL means that it is possible to define policies that could produce unexpected results. We provide an analysis of how PTL should be restricted and how policies written in PCL should be evaluated to minimize the likelihood of undesirable results. Security-sensitive environments protect their information resources against unauthorized use by enforcing access control mechanisms driven by access control policies. Due to the need to compare, contrast, and compose such protected information resources, access control policies regulating their manipulation need to be compared, contrasted, and composed. An algebra for manipulating such access control policies at a higher (propositional) level, where the operations of the algebra are abstracted from their specification details, is the subject of this paper. This algebra is applicable to policies that have controlled nondeterminism and all or nothing assignments of access privileges in their specification. These requirements reflect current practices in discretionary and role-based access control models. Therefore, the proposed algebra can be used to reason about role-based access control policies combined with other forms of discretionary policies. We show how to use algebraic identities to reason about consistency, completeness, and determinacy of composed policies using similar properties of their constituents. Access control to IT systems increasingly relies on the ability to compose policies. Hence there is benefit in any framework for policy composition that is intuitive, formal (and so “analyzable” and “implementable”), expressive, independent of specific application domains, and yet able to be extended to create domain-specific instances. Here we develop such a framework based on Belnap logic. An access-control policy is interpreted as a four-valued predicate that maps access requests to either grant, deny, conflict, or unspecified -- the four values of the Belnap bilattice. We define an expressive access-control policy language PBel, having composition operators based on the operators of Belnap logic. Natural orderings on policies are obtained by lifting the truth and information orderings of the Belnap bilattice. These orderings lead to a query language in which policy analyses, for example, conflict freedom, can be specified. Policy analysis is supported through a reduction of the validity of policy queries to the validity of propositional formulas on predicates over access requests. We evaluate our approach through firewall policy and RBAC policy examples, and discuss domain-specific and generic extensions of our policy language.