Verification of Workflow processes under multilevel security considerations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional modelling and analysis of workflow aims at verifying the correctness of its control flow. When dealing with workflow security, the compliance of information flow with the adopted security policies needs also to be analyzed. In this paper, we propose a two-steps verification approach. While the first step is concerned by soundness of the workflow, the second one is concerned by the data consistency with respect to a multilevel security policy where the granting of access rights to objects by the workflow system is done according to information flow rules of Bell-LaPadula model. Our approach is based on the ECATNet formalism. It offers means to incorporate the security constraints on information flow into an initial WF net modeling the control flow of a workflow specification. We then show how to analyze the impact of the security rules on the whole Workflow through the model checker of the MAUDE environment and how to relax them before producing the correct specification and submitting it to the workflow system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it