Risk-aware Fine-grained Access Control in Cyber-physical Contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Access to resources by users may need to be granted only upon certain conditions and contexts, perhaps particularly in cyber-physical settings. Unfortunately, creating and modifying context-sensitive access control solutions in dynamic environments creates ongoing challenges to manage the authorization contexts. This article proposes RASA, a context-sensitive access authorization approach and mechanism leveraging unsupervised machine learning to automatically infer risk-based authorization decision boundaries. We explore RASA in a healthcare usage environment, wherein cyber and physical conditions create context-specific risks for protecting private health information. The risk levels are associated with access control decisions recommended by a security policy. A coupling method is introduced to track coexistence of the objects within context using frequency and duration of coexistence, and these are clustered to reveal sets of actions with common risk levels; these are used to create authorization decision boundaries. In addition, we propose a method for assessing the risk level and labelling the clusters with respect to their corresponding risk levels. We evaluate the promise of RASA-generated policies against a heuristic rule-based policy. By employing three different coupling features (frequency-based, duration-based, and combined features), the decisions of the unsupervised method and that of the policy are more than 99% consistent.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".