ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
ROWLBAC: representing role based access control in OWL
Full text PdfPdf (395 KB)
Source
Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies archive
Proceedings of the 13th ACM symposium on Access control models and technologies table of contents
Estes Park, CO, USA
SESSION: Role based access control table of contents
Pages 73-82  
Year of Publication: 2008
ISBN:978-1-60558-129-3
Authors
T. Finin  Univ. of Maryland
A. Joshi  Univ. of Maryland
L. Kagal  Massachusetts Institute of Technology
J. Niu  Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
R. Sandhu  Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
W. Winsborough  Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
B. Thuraisingham  Univ. of Texas Dallas
Sponsors
SIGSAC: ACM Special Interest Group on Security, Audit, and Control
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 19,   Downloads (12 Months): 219,   Citation Count: 5
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1377836.1377849
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

There have been two parallel themes in access control research in recent years. On the one hand there are efforts to develop new access control models to meet the policy needs of real world application domains. In parallel, and almost separately, researchers have developed policy languages for access control. This paper is motivated by the consideration that these two parallel efforts need to develop synergy. A policy language in the abstract without ties to a model gives the designer little guidance. Conversely a model may not have the machinery to express all the policy details of a given system or may deliberately leave important aspects unspecified. Our vision for the future is a world where advanced access control concepts are embodied in models that are supported by policy languages in a natural intuitive manner, while allowing for details beyond the models to be further specified in the policy language.

This paper studies the relationship between the Web Ontology Language (OWL) and the Role Based Access Control (RBAC) model. Although OWL is a web ontology language and not specifically designed for expressing authorization policies, it has been used successfully for this purpose in previous work. OWL is a leading specification language for the Semantic Web, making it a natural vehicle for providing access control in that context. In this paper we show two different ways to support the NIST Standard RBAC model in OWL and then discuss how the OWL constructions can be extended to model attribute-based RBAC or more generally attribute-based access control. We further examine and assess OWL's suitability for two other access control problems: supporting attribute based access control and performing security analysis in a trust-management framework.


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
 
2
F. Baader. Restricted role-value-maps in a description logic with existential restrictions and terminological cycles. Proc. DL 2003.
 
3
 
4
 
5
S. Bechhofer, F. van Harmelen Jim Hendler, I. Horrocks, D. L. McGuinness, P. F. Patel-Schneider, and L. A. Stein. Owl web ontology language reference, February 2004. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref.
 
6
 
7
N. Damianou, N. Dulay, E. Lupu, and M. Sloman. The ponder policy specification language. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1995, 2001.
 
8
9
10
 
11
S. Godik and T. Moses. OASIS extensible access control markup language (XACML). OASIS Committee Secification cs-xacml-specification-1.0, November 2002.
 
12
P. Hayes and B. McBride. RDF Semantics. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/, 2004.
 
13
N. Heilili, Y. Chen, C. Zhao, Z. Luo, and Z. Lin. An owl based approach for rbac with negative authorization. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4092:164, 2006.
 
14
I. Horrocks, P. Patel-Schneider, H. Boley, S. Tabet, B. Grosof, and M. Dean. SWRL: A semantic web rule language combining OWL and RuleML. W3C Member Submission, 21, 2004.
 
15
 
16
 
17
O. Lassila, R. Swick, et al. Resource Description Framework (RDF) Model and Syntax Specification. 1999.
 
18
 
19
N. Li and J. Mitchell. RT: A Role-based Trust-management Framework. DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition (DISCEX), pages 123--139.
 
20
21
 
22
D. L. McGuinness and F. van Harmelen. Owl web ontology language overview, February 2004. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/.
 
23
T. Moses et al. eXtensible Access Control Markup Language (XACML) Version 2.0. OASIS Standard, 200502, 2005.
 
24
J. Park and R. Sandhu. The UCONABC usage control model. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security, 5(6), 2007.
25
 
26
M. Reith, J. Niu, and W. Winsborough. Model checking to security analysis in trust management. In ICDE Workshop on Security Technologies for Next Generation Collaborative Business Applications, 2007.
 
27
C. N. Ribeiro, A. Zuquete, P. Ferreira, and P. Guedes. SPL: An access control language for security policies with complex constraints. In Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS'01), 2001.
 
28
 
29
R. S. Sandhu. Role-based access control. In M. Zerkowitz, editor, Advances in Computers, volume 48. Academic Press, 1998.
 
30
M. Schmidt-Schauss. Subsumption in KL-one is undecidable. Fachber. Informatik, Univ, 1988.
 
31
 
32
 
33
B. Thuraisingham. Assured information sharing. Technical Report UTDCS-43-06, Computer Science Department, University of Texas Dallas, 2006. to appear as Book Chapter in Security Informatics by Springer, editor: H. Chen.
 
34
G. Tonti, J. M. Bradshaw, R. Jeffers, R. Montanar, N. Suri1, and A. Uszok1. Semantic web languages for policy representation and reasoning: A comparison of kaos, rei, and ponder. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC2003). Springer-Verlag, 2003.
35


Collaborative Colleagues:
T. Finin: colleagues
A. Joshi: colleagues
L. Kagal: colleagues
J. Niu: colleagues
R. Sandhu: colleagues
W. Winsborough: colleagues
B. Thuraisingham: colleagues