The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Flexible support for multiple access control policies
Abstract
Although several access control policies can be devised for controlling access to information, all existing authorization models, and the corresponding enforcement mechanisms, are based on a specific policy (usually the closed policy). As a consequence, although different policy choices are possible in theory, in practice only a specific policy can actually be applied within a given system. In this paper, we present a unified framework that can enforce multiple access control policies within a single system. The framework is based on a language through which users can specify security policies to be enforced on specific accesses. The language allows the specification of both positive and negative authorizations and incorporates notions of authorization derivation, conflict resolution, and decision strategies. Different strategies may be applied to different users, groups, objects, or roles, based on the needs of the security policy. The overall result is a flexible and powerful, yet simple, framework that can easily capture many of the traditional access control policies as well as protection requirements that exist in real-world applications, but are seldom supported by existing systems. The major advantage of our approach is that it can be used to specify different access control policies that can all coexist in the same system and be enforced by the same security server.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Revocations - A classification
Hagstrom, A., Jajodia, S., Parisi-Presicce, F., & Wijesekera, D. (2001) · Proceedings. 14th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop, 2001. · doi:10.1109/csfw.2001.930135 · Cited by 61
Self-citationBig Data and Analytics in the Age of the GDPR
Bonatti, P. A., & Kirrane, S. (2019) · 2019 IEEE International Congress on Big Data (BigDataCongress) · doi:10.1109/bigdatacongress.2019.00015 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Jajodia, S., Samarati, P., Sapino, M. L., & Subrahmanian, V. S.
- Venue
- ACM Transactions on Database Systems
- Published
- 2001-06
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 214-260
- ISSN
- 0362-5915 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-4644
- OpenAlex
- W2012419258
- Cited by
- 640
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 126.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.