RuleSN: Research and Application of Social Network Access Control Model

Personalized Privacy Protecting Model in Mobile Social Network

“…But due to the large number of rules, it is prone to result in conflicted policy and cannot guarantee the consistency of authorization and the effective implementation of policies. Authorization rules based access control model [Jayaraman, Rinard and Tripunitara (2011); Ma, Tao, Zhong et al (2016)] adds the concepts of user attributes and permissions allocation rules on the basis of rule based access control model. It achieves the dynamic role permission assignment, but the model does not meet the demand of user-defined privacy policies.…”

“…The existing researches on mobile social network privacy protection concentrate mainly on privacy preserving data publishing, data mining and access control [Cheng, Park and Shu (2016); Kokciyan and Yolum (2016); Kumar and Kumar (2017); Schlegel, Chow, Huang et al (2017); Soliman, Bahri and Girdzijauskas (2016); Sun, Yu, Kong et al (2014); Such and Criado (2016); Tai, Yu, Yang et al (2011); Thapa, Liao, Li et al (2016); Wang, Srivatsa and Liu (2012); Zou, Chen and Ozsu (2009)], in which anonymization is the main privacy preserving technology for social network data release, so that the data released can meet the need of data analysis while user privacy is not compromised; and social network access control techniques mainly focuse on designing social network access control model to solve the problem of social network data access authorization [Adam, Atluri, Bertino et al (2002); Carminati, Ferrari and Perego (2006); Cirio, Cruz and Tamassia (2007); Jayaraman, Rinard and Tripunitara (2011); Li, Tang and Mao (2009); Ma, Tao, Zhong et al (2016) ; Yuan and Tong (2005)]. However, there is relatively less research work on personalized privacy protection of social network data, so that it increases the risk of privacy disclosure and the complexity of user privacy settings.…”

A novel social network access control model using logical authorization language in cloud computing

“…Current access control models of social network are difficult to satisfy such fine‐grained policies needs . The methods of Cheng and Carminati all lack a mechanism of propagation policies because they do not look on a social network as a hierarchy.…”

“…The disadvantage of their model is that the decision of access authorization mainly depends on various relationships, which do not consider the impact of the attributes of the users and resource to access control decision. The model also is relatively complex and possesses a weak feasibility, and more, which fails to establish an united formal social network model by incorporating users, resources, and their attributes.Current access control models of social network are difficult to satisfy such fine-grained policies needs [33]. The methods of Cheng and Carminati [32] all lack a mechanism of propagation policies because they do not look on a social network as a hierarchy.…”

Issues of privacy policy conflict in mobile social network

“…The existing researches on MSN privacy protection mainly concentrate on privacy-preserving data publishing, data mining, and access control, [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] in which anonymization is the main privacy-preserving technology for social network data release, so that the data released can meet the need of data analysis while user privacy is not compromised; and social network access control techniques mainly focus on designing social network access control model to solve the problem of social network data access authorization. 18,[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] However, the conflict of privacy protection policies of access control model inevitably occurs. In this article, we summarized the main access control models in MSN, analyzed their contribution, and point out their disadvantages.…”