Computational paradigms and protection

ABSTRACT

We investigate how protection requirements may be specified and implemented using the imperative, availability and coercion paradigms. Conventional protection mechanisms generally follow the imperative paradigm, requiring explicit and often centralized control over the sequencing and the mediation of security critical operations. This paper illustrates how casting protection in the availability and/or coercion styles provides the basis for more flexible and potentially distributed control over the sequencing and mediation of these operations.

REFERENCES

• 1: ARVIND, AND GOSTELOW, K. P. A computer capable of exchanging processors for time. Information Processing 77 Proceedings of IFIP Congress 77 Pages 849-853, Toronto, Canada, August 1977.
• 2: BLAZE, M., ET AL. The keynote trust-management system version 2. Internet Request For Comments 2704.
• 3: BREWER, D., AND NASH, M. The Chinese Wall security policy. In Proceedings of the 1989 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (May 1989), IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 206-214.
• 4: Simon N. Foley, The specification and implementation of “commercial” security requirements including dynamic segregation of duties, Proceedings of the 4th ACM conference on Computer and communications security, p.125-134, April 01-04, 1997, Zurich, Switzerland [doi>10.1145/266420.266447]
• 5: FOLEY, S., QUILLINAN, T., MORRISON, J., POWER, D., AND KENNEDY, J. Exploiting KeyNote in Web-Com: Architecture neutral glue for trust management. In Fifth Nordic Workshop on Secure IT Systems (Reyk-javik, Iceland, Oct 2001).
• 6: HARARY, F., NORMAN, R., AND CARTWRIGHT, D. Structural models: An introduction to the theory of directed graphs. John Wiley and Sons,1969.
• 7: Butler W. Lampson, Protection, ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, v.8 n.1, p.18-24, January 1974 [doi>10.1145/775265.775268]
• 8: MORRISON, J. Condensed Graphs: Unifying Availability-Driven, Coercion-Driven and Control-Driven Computing. PhD thesis, Eindhoven, 1996.
• 9: John P. Morrison , Ronan W. Connolly, Facilitating Parallel Programming in PVM Using Condensed Graphs, Proceedings of the 6th European PVM/MPI Users' Group Meeting on Recent Advances in Parallel Virtual Machine and Message Passing Interface, p.181-188, September 26-29, 1999
• 10: MORRISON, J., POWER, D., AND KENNEDY, J. A Condensed Graphs Engine to Drive Metacomputing. Proceedings of the international conference on parallel and distributed processing techniques and applications (PDPTA '99), Las Vagas, Nevada, June 28 - July1, 1999.
• 11: MORRISON, J., AND REM, M. Managing and exploiting speculative computations in a flow driven, graph reduction machine. proceedings of PDPTA'99: Las Vegas, USA. June 28-July 1, 1999.
• 12: NASH, M., AND POLAND, K. Some conundrums concerning separation of duty. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Security and Privacy (Oakland, CA, May 1990), IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 201-207.
• 13: R. D. BLUMOFE, P. L. Adaptive and reliable parallel computing on networks of workstations. Proceedings of the USENIX 1997 Annual Technical Symposium (January 1997).
• 14: J. M. Rushby, Design and verification of secure systems, Proceedings of the eighth ACM symposium on Operating systems principles, p.12-21, December 14-16, 1981, Pacific Grove, California, United States

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.4 OPERATING SYSTEMS
      D.4.6 Security and Protection

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.1 PROGRAMMING TECHNIQUES
      D.1.0 General

  F. Theory of Computation
  F.1 COMPUTATION BY ABSTRACT DEVICES
      F.1.2 Modes of Computation

Keywords:
condensed graphs, functional and dataflow programming, imperative, protection mechanisms, security models