The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Delegation logic: A logic-based approach to distributed authorization
Abstract
We address the problem of authorization in large-scale, open, distributed systems. Authorization decisions are needed in electronic commerce, mobile-code execution, remote resource sharing, privacy protection, and many other applications. We adopt the trust-management approach, in which "authorization" is viewed as a " proof-of-compliance " problem: Does a set of credentials prove that a request complies with a policy?We develop a logic-based language, called Delegation Logic (DL), to represent policies, credentials, and requests in distributed authorization. In this paper, we describe D1LP, the monotonic version of DL. D1LP extends the logic-programming (LP) language Datalog with expressive delegation constructs that feature delegation depth and a wide variety of complex principals (including, but not limited to, k-out-of-n thresholds). Our approach to defining and implementing D1LP is based on tractably compiling D1LP programs into ordinary logic programs (OLPs). This compilation approach enables D1LP to be implemented modularly on top of existing technologies for OLP, for example, Prolog.As a trust-management language, D1LP provides a concept of proof-of-compliance that is founded on well-understood principles of logic programming and knowledge representation. D1LP also provides a logical framework for studying delegation.
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
Cites
Handbook of applied cryptography
(1997) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.34-4512 · Cited by 10,357
The well-founded semantics for general logic programs
Van Gelder, A., Ross, K. A., & Schlipf, J. S. (1991) · Journal of the ACM · doi:10.1145/116825.116838 · Cited by 1,652
Cited by
Semantic-based Automated Reasoning for AWS Access Policies using SMT
Backes, J., Bolignano, P., Cook, B., Dodge, C., Gacek, A., Luckow, K., Rungta, N., Tkachuk, O., & Varming, C. (2018) · 2018 Formal Methods in Computer Aided Design (FMCAD) · doi:10.23919/fmcad.2018.8602994 · Cited by 106
STORK: a real, heterogeneous, large-scale eID management system
Ribeiro, C., Leitold, H., Esposito, S., & Mitzam, D. (2018) · International Journal of Information Security · doi:10.1007/s10207-017-0385-x · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Li, N., Grosof, B. N., & Feigenbaum, J.
- Venue
- ACM Transactions on Information and System Security
- Published
- 2003-02
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 128-171
- ISSN
- 1094-9224 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7406
- OpenAlex
- W2020992910
- Cited by
- 425
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 177.33
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Delegation logic: A logic-based approach to distributed authorization. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/605434.605438
- The paper
- Li, N., Grosof, B. N., & Feigenbaum, J. (2003). Delegation logic: A logic-based approach to distributed authorization. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security. https://doi.org/10.1145/605434.605438
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.