The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Proposed NIST standard for role-based access control
Open accessAbstract
In this article we propose a standard for role-based access control (RBAC). Although RBAC models have received broad support as a generalized approach to access control, and are well recognized for their many advantages in performing large-scale authorization management, no single authoritative definition of RBAC exists today. This lack of a widely accepted model results in uncertainty and confusion about RBAC's utility and meaning. The standard proposed here seeks to resolve this situation by unifying ideas from a base of frequently referenced RBAC models, commercial products, and research prototypes. It is intended to serve as a foundation for product development, evaluation, and procurement specification. Although RBAC continues to evolve as users, researchers, and vendors gain experience with its application, we feel the features and components proposed in this standard represent a fundamental and stable set of mechanisms that may be enhanced by developers in further meeting the needs of their customers. As such, this document does not attempt to standardize RBAC features beyond those that have achieved acceptance in the commercial marketplace and research community, but instead focuses on defining a fundamental and stable set of RBAC components. This standard is organized into the RBAC Reference Model and the RBAC System and Administrative Functional Specification. The reference model defines the scope of features that comprise the standard and provides a consistent vocabulary in support of the specification. The RBAC System and Administrative Functional Specification defines functional requirements for administrative operations and queries for the creation, maintenance, and review of RBAC sets and relations, as well as for specifying system level functionality in support of session attribute management and an access control decision process.
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
Security and privacy in electronic health records: a systematic literature review.
Fernández-Alemán, J. L., Señor, I. C., Lozoya, P. Á. O., & Toval, A. (2013) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2012.12.003 · Cited by 675
A Survey on Access Control in the Age of Internet of Things
Qiu, J., Tian, Z., Du, C., Zuo, Q., Su, S., & Fang, B. (2020) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2020.2969326 · Cited by 458
Fog computing security: A review of current applications and security solutions
Khan, S., Parkinson, S., & Qin, Y. (2017) · Journal of Cloud Computing · doi:10.1186/s13677-017-0090-3 · Cited by 409
Secure attribute-based systems
Pirretti, M., Traynor, P., McDaniel, P., & Waters, B. (2006) · Proceedings of the 13th ACM conference on Computer and communications security · doi:10.1145/1180405.1180419 · Cited by 363
Collaborative and secure sharing of healthcare data in multi-clouds
Fabian, B., Ermakova, T., & Junghanns, P. (2015) · Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.is.2014.05.004 · Cited by 223
Metadata
- Authors
- Ferraiolo, D. F., Sandhu, R., Gavrila, S., Kuhn, D. R., & Chandramouli, R.
- Venue
- ACM Transactions on Information and System Security
- Published
- 2001-08
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 224-274
- ISSN
- 1094-9224 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7406
- OpenAlex
- W2154765153
- Cited by
- 2,544
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 265.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Proposed NIST standard for role-based access control. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/501978.501980
- The paper
- Ferraiolo, D. F., Sandhu, R., Gavrila, S., Kuhn, D. R., & Chandramouli, R. (2001). Proposed NIST standard for role-based access control. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security. https://doi.org/10.1145/501978.501980
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.