Advertisement

Authorisation Subterfuge by Delegation in Decentralised Networks

  • Simon Foley
  • Hongbin Zhou
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4631)

Abstract

Trust Management [1,4,10] is an approach to constructing and interpreting the trust relationships among public-keys that are used to mediate security-critical actions. Cryptographic credentials are used to specify delegation of authorisation among public keys. Existing trust management schemes are operational in nature, defining security in terms of specific controls such as delegation chains, threshold schemes, and so forth.

However, Trust Management approaches tend not to consider whether a particular authorisation policy is well designed in the sense that a principle cannot somehow bypass the intent of a complex series of authorisation delegations via some unexpected circuitous route. In an open system no individual has a complete picture of all the resources and services that are available. Unlike the administrator who ‘sees everything’ in a traditional closed system, the principals of an open system are often ordinary users and are open to confusion and subterfuge when interacting with resources and services. These users may inadvertently delegate un-intended authorisation to recipients.

In this paper we introduce the problem of authorisation subterfuge, whereby, in a poorly designed system, delegation chains that are used by principals to prove authorisation may not actually reflect the original intention of all of the participants in the chain.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Blaze, M., et al.: The keynote trust-management system version 2. Internet Request For Comments 2704 (September 1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blaze, M., Ioannidis, J., Ionnidis, S., Keromytis, A., Nikander, P., Prevelakis, V.: Tapi: Transactions for accessing public infrastructure (submitted for publication, 2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blaze, M., Ioannidis, J., Keromytis, A.D.: Offline micropayments without trusted hardware. In: Financial Cryptography, Grand Cayman (February 2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ellison, C., et al.: SPKI certificate theory. Internet Request for Comments: 2693 (September 1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ellison, C.M.: The nature of a usable PKI. Computer Networks 31, 823–830 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Foley, S.N.: Evaluating system integrity. In: Proceedings of the ACM New Security Paradigms Workshop, ACM Press, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Foley, S.N.: A non-functional approach to system integrity. Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 21(1) (January 2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Foley, S.N.: Using trust management to support transferable hash-based micropayments. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Financial Cryptography Conference, Gosier, Guadeloupe, FWI (January 2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Foley, S.N.: Believing in the integrity of a system. In: IJCAR Workshop on Automated Reasoning for Security Protocol Analysis, ENCS. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rivest, R., Lampson, B.: SDSI - a simple distributed security infrastructure. In: DIMACS Workshop on Trust Management in Networks (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zeller, T.: New York Times (January 18, 2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhou, H., Foley, S.N.: A logic for analysing authorisation subterfuge in delegation chains. In: Submitted for publication (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon Foley
    • 1
  • Hongbin Zhou
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, University College, CorkIreland

Personalised recommendations