ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Configuring role-based access control to enforce mandatory and discretionary access control policies
Full text PdfPdf (138 KB)
Source ACM Transactions on Information and System Security (TISSEC) archive
Volume 3 ,  Issue 2  (May 2000) table of contents
Pages: 85 - 106  
Year of Publication: 2000
ISSN:1094-9224
Authors
Sylvia Osborn  Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Ont., Canada
Ravi Sandhu  George Mason Univ., Fairfax, VA
Qamar Munawer  George Mason Univ., Fairfax, VA
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 18,   Downloads (12 Months): 270,   Citation Count: 59
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   review   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/10.1145/354876.354878
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Access control models have traditionally included mandatory access control (or lattice-based access control) and discretionary access control. Subsequently, role-based access control has been introduced, along with claims that its mechanisms are general enough to simulate the traditional methods. In this paper we provide systematic constructions for various common forms of both of the traditional access control paradigms using the role-based access control (RBAC) models of Sandhu et al., commonly called RBAC96. We see that all of the features of the RBAC96 model are required, and that although for the manatory access control simulation, only one administrative role needs to be assumed, for the discretionary access control simulations, a complex set of administrative roles is required.


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
BELL, D. 1987. Secure computer systems: A network interpretation. In Proceedings on 3rd Annual Computer Security Application Conference. 32-39.
 
2
CLARK,D.AND WILSON, D. 1987. A comparison of commercial and military computer security policies. In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (Oakland, CA, May). 184-194.
3
 
4
GRAHAM,G.AND DENNING, P. 1972. Protection-principles and practice. In Proceedings on AFIPS Spring Joint Computer Conference. AFIPS Press, Arlington, VA, 417-429.
 
5
LAMPSON, B. 1974. Protection. In Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Information Sciences and Systems (Princeton, NJ, Mar.). 437-443.
 
6
LEE, T. 1988. Using mandatory integrity to enforce "commercial" security. In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (Oakland, CA). 140-146.
 
7
 
8
 
9
10
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
15
 
16
17
 
18
SANDHU,R.AND SAMARATI, P. 1994. Access control: Principles and practice. IEEE Commun. Mag. 32,9,40-48.
 
19
SANDHU,R.S.AND SAMARATI, P. 1997. Authentication, access control and intrusion detection. In The Computer Science and Engineering Handbook, A. B. Tucker, Ed. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL, 1929-1948.
 
20
SCHOCKLEY, W. 1988. Implementing the Clark/Wilson integrity policy using current technology. In Proceedings of the 11th National Computer Security Conference (NIST-NCSC, Baltimore, Maryland, Oct.17-20). National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 29-37.

CITED BY  59


REVIEW

"James P. Anderson : Reviewer"

The authors show that a particular set of RBAC models known as RBAC96 can be used to define a variety of lattice based access controls (LBAC), an abstraction and generalization of what is also known as the hierarchical access control model.   more...

Collaborative Colleagues:
Sylvia Osborn: colleagues
Ravi Sandhu: colleagues
Qamar Munawer: colleagues