A formal integration of access control policies into information systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Security is a key aspect in information systems (IS) development. One cannot build a bank IS without security in mind. In medical IS, security is one of the most important features of the software. Access control is one of many security aspects of an IS. It defines permitted or forbidden execution of system's actions by a user. Between the conception of an access control policy and its effective deployment on an IS, several steps can introduce unacceptable errors. Using formal methods may be an answer to reduce errors during the modeling of access control policies. Using the process algebra EB3, one can formally model IS. Its extension, EB3SEC, was created in order to model access control policies. The ASTD notation combines Harel's Statecharts and EB3 operators into a graphical and formal notation that can be used in order to model IS. However, both methods lack tools allowing a designer to prove or verify security properties in order to validate an access control policy. Furthermore, the implementation of an access control policy must correspond to its abstract specification. This thesis defines translation rules from EB3 to ASTD, from ASTD to Event-B and from ASTD to B. It also introduces a formal architecture expressed using the B notation in order to enforce a policy over an IS. This modeling of access control policies in B can be used in order to prove properties, thanks to the B prover, but also to verify properties using ProB, a model checker for B. Finally, a refinement strategy for the access control policy into an implementation is proposed. B refinements are proved, this ensures that the implementation corresponds to the initial model of the access control policy. Keywords: Information system, access control, B, Event-B, ASTD, EB3.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".