skip to main content
10.1145/775412.775437acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessacmatConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

A stratification-based approach for handling conflicts in access control

Published:02 June 2003Publication History

ABSTRACT

In the health care sector, access to medical information is more and more electronically achieved. Therefore, it is very important to define security policies which restrict access to pieces of information in order to guarantee security properties like confidentiality or integrity properties. These security policies are not always free of conflicts, in particular in the presence of exceptional situations.This paper proposes tools for access control, based on the notion of roles, in the possibilistic logic framework. We first show how to formalize basic concepts of security policies. Then we present two approaches for dealing with conflicts based on a stratification of security policy's rules. Finally, an example of health care is presented.

References

  1. A. Abou El Kalam, R. El Baida, P. Balbiani, S. Benferhat, F. Cuppens, Y. Deswarte, A. Miège, C. Saurel, and G. Trouessin. Organization based access control. In Policy '03, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. S. Benferhat. Handling Hard Rules and Default Rules in Possibilistic Logic. In IPMU '94, pages 302--310, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. S. Benferhat, C. Cayrol, D. Dubois, J. Lang, and H. Prade. Inconsistency management and prioritized syntax-based entailment. In IJCAI '93, pages 640--645, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. S. Benferhat, D. Dubois, and H. Prade. Nonmonotonic reasoning, conditional objects and possibility theory. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. S. Benferhat, S. Dubois, andH. Prade. Representing default rules in possibilistic logic. In KR '92 , pages 673--684, Cambridge, MA, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. S. Benferhat, S. Kaci, D. Le Berre, and M. Williams. Weakening Conflicting Information for Iterated Revision and Knowledge Integration. In IJCAI '01, pages 109--118, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. E. Bertino, S. Jajodia, and P. Samarati. Supporting Multiple Access Control Policies in Database Systems. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, USA, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. S. Coste-Marquis and P. Marquis. Compiling Stratified Belief Bases. In ECAI2000 , Berlin, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. A. Darwiche and P. Marquis. Compilation of propositional weighted bases. In NMR '2002, Toulouse, France, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. G. Dinolt, L. Benzinger, and M. Yatabe. Combining Components and Policies. In Proc. of the Computer Security Foundations Workshop VII, Franconia, USA, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. D. Dubois, J. Lang, and H. Prade. Possibilistic logic. In Handbook of Logic in Artifical Intelligence and Logic Programming , volume 3, pages 439--513. Oxford University Press, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. C. K. Georgiadis, I. Mavridis, G. Pangalos, and R. K. Thomas. Flexible Team-Based Access Control Using Contexts. In SACMAT '01, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. J. Lang. Possibilistic logic:complexity and algorithms . In Algorithms for Uncertainty and Defeasible Reasoning, Rds:Kohlas, Jrg et Moral, Serafin, Eds: Kluwer Academic Publishers , Dordrecht, The Netherlands , V. 5 , Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems (Gabbay D., Smets P. Eds.), pages 179--220, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. D. Lehmann and M. Magidor. What does a conditional knowledge base entail. In Artificial Intelligence , 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. J. D. Moffett and M. S. Sloman. Policy Conflict analysis in Distributed Systems Management. Journal of Organizational Computing, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. J. Pearl. System Z:A natural ordering of defaults with tractable applications to default reasoning. In TARK '90, 1990. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. N. Rescher and R. Manor. On inference from inconsistent premises. In Theory and Decision 1, 1970.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. R. Sandhu. Role-Based Access Control. In Academic Press, editor, Advances in Computers , volume 46, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. M. Wilikens, S. Feriti, and M. Masera. A context-related authorization access control method based on RBAC :a case study from the healthcare domain. In Sacmat '02 , 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A stratification-based approach for handling conflicts in access control

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SACMAT '03: Proceedings of the eighth ACM symposium on Access control models and technologies
      June 2003
      246 pages
      ISBN:1581136811
      DOI:10.1145/775412

      Copyright © 2003 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 2 June 2003

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Acceptance Rates

      SACMAT '03 Paper Acceptance Rate23of63submissions,37%Overall Acceptance Rate177of597submissions,30%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader