Skip to main content

A Model for Protection in Persistent Object-Oriented Systems

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Workshops in Computing ((WORKSHOPS COMP.))

Abstract

Lampson’s protection matrix provides a simple model for defining how subjects can access objects in a system. In real systems protection requirements can often be expressed in terms not easily captured by this simple view of subjects and objects. The paper considers how a system can be viewed as a collection of objects of particular classes and types and with particular compositions. In order to express the variety of possible protection conditions relevant to such a system we propose a new general protection model based on access rules and show how this can be applied to object-oriented systems. We then propose two orthogonal ways of classifying protection requirements. Protection mechanisms are then classified into 3 levels (architectural, language and programmed) and related back to the classification of requirements. Finally we present the MONADS protection mechanisms as an example of an efficient implementation for access rules, showing how a security policy might in practice be implemented to fulfil protection requirements expressed in terms of the model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, M., Pose, R.D. and Wallace, C.S. (1986) “A Password-Capability System”, The Computer Journal, 29, 1, February 1986, pp. 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Boebert, W.E. “On the Inability of an Unmodified Capability Machine to Enforce the *- Property”, Proceedings of the 7th DoD/NBS Computer Security Conference, September 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Campbell, R.H. and Habermann, A.N. (1974) “The Specification of Process Synchronisation by Path Expressions”, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 16, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 89–102.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Freisleben, B. and Kammerer, P. (1990) “Capabilities and Encryption: The Ultimate Defense against Security Attacks?”, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Computer Architectures to Support Security and Persistence of Information, Bremen, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gong, L. “On Security in Capability-Based Systems”, ACM Operating Systems Review, 23, 2, 1989, pp. 56–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jones, A.K. and Liskov, B.H. (1978) “A Language Extension for Expressing Constraints on Data Access”, Communications of the ACM, 21, 5, pp. 358–367.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Keedy, J.L. and Freisleben, B. (1989) “Priority Semaphores”, The Computer Journal, 32, 1, 1989, pp. 24–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Keedy, J.L. and Richards, I. (1982) “A Software Engineering View of Files”, Australian Computer Journal, 14, 2, May 1982, pp. 56–61.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Keedy, J.L. and Rosenberg J. (1987) “Object Management and Addressing in the MONADS Architecture”, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Persistent Object Systems, Appin, Scotland, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Keedy, J.L. and Rosenberg J. (1989) “Support for Objects in the MONADS Architecture”, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Persistent Object Systems, Newcastle, Australia, January 1989, pp. 202–213.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Keedy, J.L., Rosenberg J. and Ramamohanarao, K. (1979) “On Implementing Semaphores with Sets”, The Computer Journal, 22, 2, May, 1979, pp. 146–150.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Keedy, J.L., Rosenberg J. and Ramamohanarao, K. (1982) “On Synchronising Readers and Writers with Semaphores”, The Computer Journal, 25, 1, February 1982, pp. 121–125.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lampson, B.W. (1971) “Protection”, Proc. 5th Princeton Symposium on Information Sciences and Systems, Princeton University, reprinted in ACM Operating Systems Review, 8, 1, 1974, pp. 18–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Landwehr, C.E. “Formal Models for Computer Security”, ACM Computing Surveys, 13, 3, September 1981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lauer, H.C. and Ncedham, R.M. (1979) “On the Duality of Operating System Structures”, ACM Operating Systems Review, 13, 2, pp. 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. McLean, J. (1990) “The Specification and Modeling of Computer Security”, IEEE Computer, 23, 1, 1990, pp. 9–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Stoll, C. “Stalking the Wiley Hacker”, Communications of the ACM, 31, 5, 1988, pp. 484–497.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1990 British Computer Society

About this paper

Cite this paper

Evered, M., Keedy, J.L. (1990). A Model for Protection in Persistent Object-Oriented Systems. In: Rosenberg, J., Keedy, J.L. (eds) Security and Persistence. Workshops in Computing. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-3178-6_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-3178-6_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-19646-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-3178-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics