Core TuLiP Logic Programming for Trust Management

Abstract

DOI to the publisher's website. • The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review. • The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal. If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement:

A Flexible Architecture for Privacy-Aware Trust Management

“…In CTM [3], [5], [9], [19], [25], [32], access decisions are based on credentials. Credentials are digital certificates attesting that a certain subject has a certain attribute, and are digitally signed by the certificate issuer to ensure their authenticity and integrity.…”

“…The decision of the PDP is returned to the PEP which enforces it, possibly releasing the requested credential. Notice that, since clauses may refer to credentials issued by other principals, the decision of the PDP can in turn be , [3], [9], [21]. The proposed architecture is flexible enough to implement any of them.…”

“…In the example above, it is clear that the BBP needs the OFT to disclose (part of) its extensional database, i.e., the requested credential. What might be less clear is that in most of the existing CTM systems (e.g., [19], [9]), the OFT would eventually have to reveal to the BBP (or to some other external authority) also part of her intensional database, that is, the actual policy statements used to determine whether some institution is reliable. The reason is that in presence of mutually recursive policy statements it is very hard to recognize when the computation is finished in a distributed way.…”

Trust Management in P2P Systems Using Standard TuLiP

“…Present TM systems do not satisfy all three conditions; RT [13,12] comes very close by satisfying the second and third requirements, but at the cost of a syntax which is too inflexible for our purposes (see our [6] for a discussion on this). Other systems either do not support decentralised storage or do not enjoy a sound and complete decision algorithm (see the Related Work section for the details).…”

“…Standard TuLiP is based on the theoretical basis laid in Core TuLiP [6], i.e. on the same concept of credential storage system and on a similar decision algorithm (which in turn is inspired by the architecture of RT [13]).…”