ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
A layered approach to simplified access control in virtualized systems
Full text PdfPdf (418 KB)
Source
ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review archive
Volume 41 ,  Issue 4  (July 2007) table of contents
SPECIAL ISSUE: Secure small-kernel systems table of contents
Pages: 12 - 19  
Year of Publication: 2007
ISSN:0163-5980
Authors
Bryan D. Payne  Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA
Reiner Sailer  IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Hawthorne, NY
Ramón Cáceres  IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Hawthorne, NY
Ron Perez  IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Hawthorne, NY
Wenke Lee  Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 24,   Downloads (12 Months): 175,   Citation Count: 4
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1278901.1278905
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

In this work, we show how the abstraction layer created by a hypervisor, or virtual machine monitor, can be leveraged to reduce the complexity of mandatory access control policies throughout the system. Policies governing access control decisions in today's systems are complex and monolithic. Achieving strong security guarantees often means restricting usability across the entire system, which is a primary reason why mandatory access controls are rarely deployed. Our architecture uses a hypervisor and multiple virtual machines to decompose policies into multiple layers. This simplifies the policies and their enforcement, while minimizing the overall impact of security on the system. We show that the overhead of decomposing system policies into distinct policies for each layer can be negligible. Our initial implementation confirms that such layering leads to simpler security policies and enforcement mechanisms as well as a more robust layered trusted computing base. We hope that this work serves to start a dialog regarding the use of mandatory access controls within a hypervisor for both increasing security and improving manageability.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
Common criteria for information technology security evaluation version 2.1. http://www.commoncriteria.org/docs/index.html, 1999.
 
2
Flexible file system benchmark (FFSB) version 5.1. http://sourceforge.net/projects/ffsb, 2006.
 
3
 
4
J. Athey, C. Ashworth, F. Mayer, and D. Miner. Towards intuitive tools for managing SELinux: Hiding the details but retaining the power. In Proceedings of the 2007 Security Enhanced Linux Symposium, March 2007.
5
6
 
7
D. E. Bell and L. J. La Padula. Secure computer system: Unified exposition and multics interpretation. Technical Report ESD-TR-75-306, The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA, 1976.
8
 
9
A. Bennett. Hole-in-the-chroot. http://clyde.concordia.ca/security/hole-in-the-chroot-v1/.
10
 
11
12
 
13
DoD. Trusted computer system evaluation criteria. Technical Report DoD 5200.28-STD, Department of Defense, 1985.
14
 
15
R. J. Feiertag and P. G. Neumann. The foundations of a provably secure operating system (PSOS). In Proceedings of the National Computer Conference, pages 329--334, Menlo Park, CA, 1979.
16
 
17
T. Garfinkel and M. Rosenblum. A virtual machine introspection based architecture for intrusion detection. In Proceedings of the Network and Distributed Systems Security Symposium, February 2003.
 
18
T. J. Gibson. An architecture for flexible, high assurance, multi-security domain networks. In Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, San Diego, CA, February 2001.
 
19
 
20
T. R. Jaeger, S. Hallyn, and J. Latten. Leveraging IPsec for mandatory access control of linux network commmunications. In Proceedings of ACSAC, 2005.
 
21
 
22
23
24
 
25
 
26
27
 
28
29
 
30
R. Meushaw and D. Simard. Nettop: A network on your desktop. Tech Trend Notes (National Security Agency), 9(4):3--11, Fall 2000.
 
31
National Security Agency. Security-Enhanced Linux. http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/.
 
32
C. J. PeBenito, F. Mayer, and K. MacMillan. Reference policy for security enhanced linux. In Proceedings of the 2006 Security Enhanced Linux Symposium, March 2006.
 
33
N. E. Proctor and P. G. Neumann. Architectural implications of covert channels. In Proceedings of the 15th National Computer Security Conference, pages 28--43, Baltimore, Maryland, 1992.
 
34
J. Rutkowska. Subverting Vista kernel for fun and profit. In Proceedings of Black Hat USA 2006, 2006.
 
35
36
37
 
38
 
39
B. Schneier. The process of security. Information Security Magazine, April, 2000.
40
41


Collaborative Colleagues:
Bryan D. Payne: colleagues
Reiner Sailer: colleagues
Ramón Cáceres: colleagues
Ron Perez: colleagues
Wenke Lee: colleagues