Homonymous role in role‐based discretionary access control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The access control model is a core aspect of trusted information systems. Based on the role based access control (RBAC) model, we put forward the concept of thehomonymous role, which extends the role control categories in RBAC, balances the control granularity and the storage space requirements, and executes the fine‐grained access control. Instead of the traditional global access control policies (GACP), we propose thehomonymous control domain(HCD) mechanism to enable the coexistence of multiple types of access control policies in a single system, thereby improving the control granularity and flexibility. The HCD mechanism facilitates the discretionary supporting of independent access control policies for its homonymous user. The HCD mechanism and the traditional access control mechanism can be linked to construct a two‐layer access control policy mechanism for a system. Notably, we also consider the temporal characteristic in HCD, which is a critical feature of modern access control models. Furthermore, we analyze the conflicts between the HCD and GACP mechanisms. Finally, we design and implement our HCD on FreeBSD to demonstrate the advantages of the two‐layer access control mechanism. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".