ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Multiple-implementation testing for XACML implementations
Full text PdfPdf (355 KB)
Source International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis archive
Proceedings of the 2008 workshop on Testing, analysis, and verification of web services and applications table of contents
Seattle, Washington
Pages 27-33  
Year of Publication: 2008
ISBN:978-1-60558-053-1
Authors
Nuo Li  North Carolina State University, NC and Beihang University, Beijing, China
JeeHyun Hwang  North Carolina State University, NC
Tao Xie  North Carolina State University, NC
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 8,   Downloads (12 Months): 103,   Citation Count: 1
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/10.1145/1390832.1390837
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Many Web applications enhance their security via access-control systems. XACML is a standardized policy language, which has been widely used in access-control systems. In an XACML-based access-control system, policies, requests, and responses are written in XACML. An XACML implementation implements XACML functionalities to validate XACML requests against XACML policies. To ensure the quality of an XACML-based access-control system, we need an effective means to test whether the XACML implementation correctly implements XACML functionalities. The test inputs of an XACML implementation are XACML policies and requests. The test outputs are XACML responses. This paper proposes an approach to detect defects in XACML implementations via observing the behaviors of different XACML implementations for the same test inputs. As XACML has been widely used, we can collect different XACML implementations, and test them with the same XACML polices and requests to observe whether the different implementations produce different responses. Based on the analysis of different responses, we can detect defects in different XACML implementations. We show the feasibility of the proposed approach with a preliminary study on three XACML implementations.


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
XACML 1.1 Committee Specification Conformance Tests, 2002. http: //www.oasis-open.org/committees/xacml/ ConformanceTests/ConformanceTests.html.
 
2
Parthenon Policy Tester, 2005. http: //www.parthcomp.com/xacml_toolkit.html.
 
3
XACML 2.0 Approved as OASIS Standard, 2005. http://xml.coverpages.org/ XACMLv20-Standard.html.
 
4
XACML.NET, 2005. http://mvpos.sourceforge.net/.
 
5
Sun's XACML Implementation, 2006. http://sunxacml.sourceforge.net/.
 
6
Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards, 2008. http://www.oasis-open.org/home/index.php.
 
7
 
8
 
9
L. Chen and A. Avizienis. N-version programming: A fault-tolerance approach to reliability of software operation. In Proc. FTCS, pages 3--9, 1978.
 
10
 
11
12
 
13
E. Martin, T. Xie, and T. Yu. Defining and measuring policy coverage in testing access control policies. In Proc. ICICS, pages 139--158, 2006.
 
14
W. M. McKeeman. Differential testing for software. Digital Technical Journal, 10(1):100--107, 1998.
 
15
OASIS. eXtensible Access Control Markup Language (XACML). http: //docs.oasis-open.org/xacml/2.0/access_control-xacml-2.0-core-spec-os.pdf.
16
 
17


Collaborative Colleagues:
Nuo Li: colleagues
JeeHyun Hwang: colleagues
Tao Xie: colleagues