Revocations - A classification
Abstract
In an ownership-based framework for access control, with the possibility of granting access and administrative rights, chains of granted accesses will form. This is a comprehensive study of the problem of revoking such rights, and on the impact different revocation schemes may have on the chains. Three main revocation characteristics are identified: the extent of the revocation to other grantees (propagation), the effect on other grants to the same grantee (dominance), and the permanence of the negation of rights (resilience). A classification is devised using these three dimensions. The different schemes thus obtained are described, and compared to other models from the literature.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Revocation research adds indirection, versioning, expiry, and online validation to invalidate delegated authority.
“Revocation research adds indirection, versioning, expiry, and online validation to invalidate delegated authority [11].”
From Authorization for Self-Modifying AI Agent Populations: Conserving Authority across Replacement, Forking, and Rollback (2026) · cites this paper as [11]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zhu, G., & Wang, C. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.00347
- Authors
- Hagstrom, A., Jajodia, S., Parisi-Presicce, F., & Wijesekera, D.
- Affiliations
- George Mason University (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings. 14th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop, 2001.
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2001
- Pages
- 44-58
- ISSN
- 1063-6900 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2142516532
- Cited by
- 61
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 9.42
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop (CSFW) (publishedVersion)
- IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Royal Academy of Engineering
- US-UK Fulbright Commission
- Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
- Air Force Research Laboratory
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Access Control and Trust
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital Rights Management and Security
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Cryptography and Data Security
- Keywords
- revocation, access control, propagation, dominance, resilience, administrative rights
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
