Shinren: Non-monotonic Trust Management for Distributed Systems

  • Changyu Dong
  • Naranker Dulay
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 321)


The open and dynamic nature of modern distributed systems and pervasive environments presents significant challenges to security management. One solution may be trust management which utilises the notion of trust in order to specify and interpret security policies and make decisions on security-related actions. Most logic-based trust management systems assume monotonicity where additional information can only result in the increasing of trust. The monotonic assumption oversimplifies the real world by not considering negative information, thus it cannot handle many real world scenarios. In this paper we present Shinren, a novel non-monotonic trust management system based on bilattice theory and the any-world assumption. Shinren takes into account negative information and supports reasoning with incomplete information, uncertainty and inconsistency. Information from multiple sources such as credentials, recommendations, reputation and local knowledge can be used and combined in order to establish trust. Shinren also supports prioritisation which is important in decision making and resolving modality conflicts that are caused by non-monotonicity.


Policy Language Classical Logic Priority Level Negative Information Trust Management 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Blaze, M., Feigenbaum, J., Lacy, J.: Decentralized trust management. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 164–173. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., Schoorman, D.F.: An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review 20(3), 709–734 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blaze, M., Feigenbaum, J., Ioannidis, J., Keromytis, A.D.: The keynote trust-management system, version 2. RFC 2704 (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jim, T.: Sd3: A trust management system with certified evaluation. In: SP 2001: Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 106–115. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Li, N., Mitchell, J.C., Winsborough, W.H.: Design of a role-based trust-management framework. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 114–130 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hess, A., Seamons, K.E.: An access control model for dynamic client-side content. In: SACMAT 2003: Proceedings of the eighth ACM symposium on Access control models and technologies, pp. 207–216. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carbone, M., Nielsen, M., Sassone, V.: A formal model for trust in dynamic networks. In: SEFM, pp. 54–61 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chu, Y.H., Feigenbaum, J., LaMacchia, B.A., Resnick, P., Strauss, M.: Referee: Trust management for web applications. Computer Networks 29(8-13), 953–964 (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Herzberg, A., Mass, Y., Mihaeli, J., Naor, D., Ravid, Y.: Access control meets public key infrastructure, or: Assigning roles to strangers. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 2–14 (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Czenko, M., Tran, H., Doumen, J., Etalle, S., Hartel, P., den Hartog, J.: Nonmonotonic trust management for P2P applications. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 157(3), 113–130 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gelder, A.V., Ross, K.A., Schlipf, J.S.: Unfounded sets and well-founded semantics for general logic programs. In: PODS, pp. 221–230. ACM, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marsh, S.P.: Formalising Trust as a Computational Concept. PhD thesis, University of Stirling (1994)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jøsang, A.: A logic for uncertain probabilities. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 9(3), 279–212 (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yu, B., Singh, M.P.: Detecting deception in reputation management. In: AAMAS, pp. 73–80. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ginsberg, M.L.: Multivalued logics: a uniform approach to reasoning in artificial intelligence. Computational Intelligence 4, 265–316 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Loyer, Y., Straccia, U.: Any-world assumptions in logic programming. Theor. Comput. Sci. 342(2-3), 351–381 (2005)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ceri, S., Gottlob, G., Tanca, L.: What you always wanted to know about datalog (and never dared to ask). IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 1(1), 146–166 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dong, C., Dulay, N.: Shinren: Non-monotonic trust management for distributed systems. Technical Report DTR10-5, Department of Computing, Imperial College London (March 2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alchourrón, C.E., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. J. Symb. Log. 50(2), 510–530 (1985)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brewka, G.: Reasoning about priorities in default logic. In: AAAI, pp. 940–945 (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Changyu Dong
    • 1
  • Naranker Dulay
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ComputingImperial College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations