skip to main content
10.1145/2786558.2786564acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespldiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Swapsies on the Internet: First Steps towards Reasoning about Risk and Trust in an Open World

Published:04 July 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

Contemporary open systems use components developed by many different parties, linked together dynamically in unforeseen constellations. Code needs to live up to strict security specifications: it has to ensure the correct functioning of its objects when they collaborate with external objects which may be malicious.

In this paper we propose specifications that model risk and trust in such open systems. We specify Miller, Van Cutsem, and Tulloh's escrow exchange example, and discuss the meaning of such a specification. We argue informally that the code satisfies its specification.

References

  1. A. Abdul-Rahman and S. Halles. A distributed trust model. In New Security Paradigms Wkshp., 1988. Langdale, Cumbria.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. K. Aberer and Z. Despotovic. Managing trust in a peer-2-peer information system. In CKIM, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. A. Aldini. A calculus for trust and reputation systems. In IFIPTM, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. D. Artz and Y. Gil. A survey of trust in computer science and the semantic web. Journal of Web Semantics, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. K. Bhargavan, A. Delignat-Lavaud, and S. Maffeis. Language-based defenses against untrusted browser origins. In USENIX Security, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Cahill et al. Using trust for secure collaboration in uncertain environments. Pervasive Computing, July 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. M. Carbone, M. Nielsen, and V. Sassone. A formal model for trust in dynamic networks. In SEFM, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. J.-H. Cho and K. S. Shan. Building trust-based sustainable networks. IEEE Tech. and Soc., Summer, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. J.-H. Cho, A. Swami, and I.-R. Chen. A survey on trust management for mobile ad hoc networks. IEEE Comms. Surv. & Tuts., 13(4), 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. J. B. Dennis and E. C. V. Horn. Programming Semantics for Multiprogrammed Computations. Comm. ACM, 9(3), 1966. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. C. Dimoulas, S. Moore, A. Askarov, and S. Chong. Declarative policies for capability control. In Computer Security Foundations Symposium, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. M. Dodds, X. Feng, M. Parkinson, and V. Vafeiadis. Deny-guarantee reasoning. In ESOP. Springer, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. S. Drossopoulou and J. Noble. The need for capability policies. In FTfJP, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. S. Drossopoulou and J. Noble. How to break the bank: Semantics of capability policies. In iFM, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. S. Drossopoulou and J. Noble. Towards capability policy specification and verification, May 2014. ecs.victoria-.ac.nz/Main/TechnicalReportSeries.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Y. Gil and D. Artz. Towards Content Trust of Web Resources. IWeb Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. L. Gu, J. Wang, and B. Sun. Trust management mechsnism for internet of things. China Communications, Feb. 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. S. M. Habib and M. M. Sebastian Ries and. Towards a trust management system for cloud computing. In TrustCom, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. J. Huang and D. M. Nicol. A formal-semantics-based calculus of trust. IEEE INTERNET COMPUTING, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. R. Karim, M. Dhawan, V. Ganapathy, and C.-C. Shan. An Analysis of the Mozilla Jetpack Extension FrameworK. In ECOOP, Springer, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. B. Lampson, M. Abadi, M. Burrows, and E. Wobbler. Authentication in Distributed Systems: Theory and Practice. ACM TOCS, (4):265--310, 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. B. S. Lerner, L. Elberty, N. Poole, and S. Krishnamurthi. Verifying web browser extensions' compliance with private-browsing mode. In European Symposium on Research in Computer Security (ESORICS), Sept. 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. S. Maffeis, J. Mitchell, and A. Taly. Object capabilities and isolation of untrusted web applications. In Proc of IEEE Security and Privacy, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. R. Merrill. focal: new conversational language. DEC, 1969. homepage.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/pdp8/focal/-focal69.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. M. Merro and E. Sibilio. A calculus of trustworthy ad hoc networks. Formal Aspects of Computing, page 25, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. M. S. Miller. Robust Composition: Towards a Unified Approach to Access Control and Concurrency Control. PhD thesis, Baltimore, Maryland, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. M. S. Miller, T. V. Cutsem, and B. Tulloh. Distributed electronic rights in JavaScript. In ESOP, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. M. S. Miller, C. Morningstar, and B. Frantz. Capability-based financial instruments: From object to capabilities. In Financial Cryptography. Springer, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. M. S. Miller, M. Samuel, B. Laurie, I. Awad, and M. Stay. Safe active content in sanitized JavaScript. code.google.com/p/google-caja/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. J. H. Morris Jr. Protection in programming languages. CACM, 16(1), 1973. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. T. Murray and G. Lowe. Analysing the information flow properties of object-capability patterns. In FAST, LNCS, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. J. Noble and S. Drossopoulou. Rationally reconstructing the escrow example. In FTfJP, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. G. Norcie, E. D. Cristofaro, and V. Bellotti. Bootstrapping trust in online dating: Social verification of online dating profiles. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. J. G. Politz, S. A. Eliopoulos, A. Guha, and S. Krishnamurthi. Adsafety: Type-based verification of JavaScript sandboxing. In USENIX Security, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. G. Primiero and M. Taddeo. A modal type theory for formalizing trusted communications. J. Applied Logic, 10, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. S. Ries, S. M. Habib, M. M. Sebastian Ries and, and V. Varadharajan. Certainlogic: A logic for modeling trust and uncertainty. In TRUST, 2011. LNCS 6740. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Roberto Carbone et al. Towards formal validation of trust and security in the internet of services. In Future Internet Assembly, 2001. LNCS 6656.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Solhaug and Stølen. Uncertainty, subjectivity, trust and risk: How it all fits together. In STM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. A. Taly, U. Erlingsson, J. C. Mitchell, M. S. Miller, and J. Nagra. Automated Analysis of Security-Critical JavaScript APIs. In SOSP, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. The Swapsies. Got Got Need. In 5: A February Records Anniversary Compilation. February Records, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. M. Walterbusch, B. Martens, and F. Teuteberg. Exploring trust in cloud computing: A multimethod approach. In ECIS, page 145, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Swapsies on the Internet: First Steps towards Reasoning about Risk and Trust in an Open World

          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 Other conferences
            PLAS'15: Proceedings of the 10th ACM Workshop on Programming Languages and Analysis for Security
            July 2015
            60 pages
            ISBN:9781450336611
            DOI:10.1145/2786558

            Copyright © 2015 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 the author(s) 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: 4 July 2015

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed limited

            Acceptance Rates

            PLAS'15 Paper Acceptance Rate5of9submissions,56%Overall Acceptance Rate43of77submissions,56%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader