2015 IEEE 28th Computer Security Foundations Symposium 2015
DOI: 10.1109/csf.2015.41
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Understanding and Enforcing Opacity

Abstract: Abstract-This paper puts a spotlight on the specification and enforcement of opacity, a security policy for protecting sensitive properties of system behavior. We illustrate the fine granularity of the opacity policy by location privacy and privacy-preserving aggregation scenarios. We present a framework for opacity and explore its key differences and formal connections with such well-known information-flow models as noninterference, knowledge-based security, and declassification. Our results are machine-check… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In particular an LTS whose trace set is {h1l1, h2l1, h2l2, h3l1, h3l2} satisfies opacity but not non-interference. Schoepe and Sabelfeld [35] prove equivalence between the two notions for input-output (i.e. length two) traces when the set of opaque properties is strong enough to characterise every possible information leak.…”
Section: Link To Non-interferencementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In particular an LTS whose trace set is {h1l1, h2l1, h2l2, h3l1, h3l2} satisfies opacity but not non-interference. Schoepe and Sabelfeld [35] prove equivalence between the two notions for input-output (i.e. length two) traces when the set of opaque properties is strong enough to characterise every possible information leak.…”
Section: Link To Non-interferencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Clearly, when ϕ is opaque in this sense, observers cannot be sure if ϕ holds of the observed system, or not. Many familiar security definitions such as noninterference, declassification, and knowledge-based security can be obtained by suitable choices of predicate ϕ [35], and notion of observable behaviour. Absolute guarantees of security are often impractical, and we may tolerate violation of security properties, as long as it happens with sufficiently low probability.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A PDP provides data confidentiality for an attacker model ATK iff all runs are secrecy-preserving for ATK . Note that our security notion can be seen as a probabilistic generalization of opacity [60] for the database setting. Our notion is also inspired by the semantics of knowledge-based policies [51].…”
Section: E Confidentialitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Non-interference has been extended to consider probabilities [5], [58], [70] for concurrent programs. Our security notion, instead, allows those leaks that do not increase an attacker's beliefs in a secret above the threshold, and it can be seen as a probabilistic extension of opacity [60], which allows any leak except leaking whether the secret holds.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Their condition requires that input on secret channels does not influence output on public channels. This condition has been used in a breadth of other work [3,8,10,13,14,21,31]. Unfortunately, the models used in these works assume that messages on secret channels are invisible to adversaries.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%