S. Weeks. Understanding trust management systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, Research in Security and Privacy, Oakland, CA, May 2001. IEEE Computer Society,Technical Committee on Security and Privacy, IEEE Computer Society Press. 17  Home/Search Document Details and Download
Summary Related Articles Check |
This paper is cited in the following contexts:
On Generalized Authorization Problems - Schwoon, Jha, Reps, Stubblebine (2003) (Correct)
....Blvd. Madison, NJ 07940. E mail: stuart stubblebine.com itly, using an appropriate specification language, and relying on an algorithm to determine when a specific request is allowable. A survey of trust management systems, along with a formal framework for understanding them, is presented in [49]. Several trust management systems, such as Binder [18] Keynote [8] Referee [15] and SPKI SDSI [19] have been proposed. Our work is presented in the context of SPKI SDSI, but several aspects of the approach should carry over to other trust management systems and authorization frameworks. In ....
S. Weeks. Understanding trust management systems. In Symp. on Res. in Sec. and Privacy, Oakland, CA, May 2001. IEEE Computer Society Press.
A Formal Model for Trust in Dynamic Networks - Carbone, Nielsen (2003) (12 citations) (Correct)
....that policies are defined by mutual recursion, and global trust is the function determined collectively by the web of policies, the function that stitches them all together. This amounts to say that GlobalTrust is the least fixpoint of the universal set of local policies, a fact first noticed in [21] which leads straight to domain theory [20] Domains are kinds of partially ordered sets which underpin the semantic theory of programming languages and have therefore been studied extensively. Working with domains allows us to use a rich and well established theory of fixpoints to develop a ....
....their way as part of trust engines. As domains are partial orders (actually CPOs) and trust degrees naturally come equipped with an ordering relation (actually a lattice structure) a possible way forward is to apply the fixpoint theory to TrustDegree viewed as a domain. This is indeed the way of [21] and, as we motivate below, it is not a viable route for GC. There are about a million reasons in a dynamic web of trust why a principal a trying to delegate to b about c may not get the information it needs: b may be temporarily offline, or in the process of updating its policy, or experiencing ....
[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]
Stephen Weeks. Understanding trust management systems. In Proc. IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, 2001.
On Calculi For Mobility And Trust - Carbone (2002) (Correct)
....between individuals. The use of the model will be to fold: a formal basis for an operational model and hence implementation, and a basis for reasoning about properties of trust based systems. There has been some work done recently on trust based security systems. As examples we mention here [Wee01], BFL96] and [AF99] and we have certainly been heavily inspired by these. However, we have also identified major limitations in existing approaches when applied to the global computing setting. In particular, most existing work does not take either the highly dynamic nature of the configuration ....
....that we can use a well established fixed point theory in defining the global trust in terms of local policies, and well established domain constructions for building structured complex domains of basic simple trust domains. A main source of inspiration in this direction has been the work of Weeks [Wee01], also basing a model of trust on domain theory. However, we have identified limitations in our attempts to use the ideas of Weeks directly in our setting. Essentially, we have identified the need for two different orderings on the set of trust elements: the information ordering, representing ....
[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]
Stephen Weeks. Understanding trust management systems. In Proc. IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, 2001. 35
End-to-end Trust Starts with Recognition - Seigneur, Farrell, Jensen, Gray, .. (2003) (2 citations) (Correct)
....interaction with another person [2] will be extended to digital entities collaborating with other digital entities. To tackle this question, the concept of trust in computer systems is attracting increasing attention from the research community. Trust has been formalized as a computational model [18, 32], but the term trust means di#erent things in different research communities, for example it may relate to trust in the underlying technology [3] or to trust between entities when they have to collaborate [11, 13] We argue that end to end trust includes both types of trust trust between ....
Weeks, S.: Understanding Trust Management Systems. In: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, (2001).
Trust for Ubiquitous, Transparent Collaboration - Shand, Dimmock, Bacon (2003) (Correct)
....a mapping from action and category pairs to primitive trust values. These trust assessments and the contribution of other recommendations are formally expressed as a local policy function [4] defined in section 4. 3, analogously to Weeks proposal for formalising access control system policies [9]. Categories are arranged in a natural privilege hierarchy: when category c 0 extends the privileges of another c 1 , we write c 0 c 1 . Figure 4 illustrates a typical hierarchy, where the top category contains the owner of the PDA, c n represent user defined categories such as immediate ....
S. Weeks. Understanding trust management systems. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 94--105, 2001. 8
Reducing the Dependence of Trust-Management Systems on PKI - Hao Wang Somesh (Correct)
No context found.
S. Weeks. Understanding trust management systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, Research in Security and Privacy, Oakland, CA, May 2001. IEEE Computer Society,Technical Committee on Security and Privacy, IEEE Computer Society Press. 17
On Generalized Authorization Problems - Schwoon Jha Reps (Correct)
No context found.
S. Weeks. Understanding trust management systems. In Symp. on Res. in Sec. and Privacy, Oakland, CA, May 2001. IEEE Computer Society Press.
On Self-Organising Mechanisms from Social, Business.. - Hassas, Di.. (2006) (Correct)
No context found.
S. Weeks. Understanding trust management systems. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 94--105, 2001.
Basic Research in Computer Science - Distributed Approximation Of (Correct)
No context found.
S. Weeks. Understanding trust management systems. In Proceedings from the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, California, pages 94--106, 2001.
A Formal Model for Trust in Dynamic Networks - Marco Carbone Mogens (2003) (12 citations) (Correct)
No context found.
S. Weeks. Understanding trust management systems. In Proc. IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, 2001.
Model checking SPKI/SDSI - Jha, Reps (2004) (Correct)
No context found.
S. Weeks, Understanding trust management systems, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, Research in Security and Privacy, Oakland, CA, IEEE Computer Society,Technical Committee on Security and Privacy, IEEE Computer Society Press, 2001.
Expressing Security Policies for Distributed - Objects Applications Bogdan (Correct)
No context found.
S. Weeks. Understanding Trust Management Systems. In Proc. IEEE Symp. on Security and Privacy, pages 94--105, May 2001. 12
Enforcing Security Policies for Distributed Objects.. - Popescu, Crispo.. (Correct)
No context found.
S. Weeks. Understanding Trust Management Systems. In Proc. IEEE Symp. on Security and Privacy, pages 94--105, May 2001.
A Formal Model for Trust in Dynamic Networks - Marco Carbone Mogens (2003) (12 citations) (Correct)
No context found.
S. Weeks. Understanding trust management systems. In Proc. IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, 2001.
Interactive Access Control for Web Services - Koshutanski, Massacci (2004) (Correct)
No context found.
Weeks, S. Understanding trust management systems. In IEEE SS&P2001 (2001), IEEE Press. 20
Trust for Ubiquitous, Transparent Collaboration - Shand, Dimmock, Bacon (2004) (Correct)
No context found.
S. Weeks. Understanding trust management systems. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pp. 94--105, 2001. 2
Principled Assuredly Trustworthy Composable Architectures - Neumann (2004) (2 citations) (Correct)
No context found.
S. Weeks. Understanding trust management systems. In Proceedings of the 2001.
A Formal Model for Trust in Dynamic Networks - Marco Carbone Mogens (2003) (12 citations) (Correct)
No context found.
S. Weeks. Understanding trust management systems. In Proc. IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, 2001.
Analysis of SPKI/SDSI Certificates Using Model Checking - Jha And Reps (2002) (Correct)
No context found.
S. Weeks. Understanding trust management systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, Research in Security and Privacy, Oakland, CA, May 2001. IEEE Computer Society,Technical Committee on Security and Privacy, IEEE Computer Society Press.
Delegation Logic: A Logic-based Approach to Distributed.. - Li, Grosof, Feigenbaum (2000) (21 citations) (Correct)
No context found.
Stephen Weeks. Understanding trust management systems. In Proceedings of 2001.
Delegation Logic: A Logic-based Approach to Distributed.. - Li, Grosof (2000) (21 citations) (Correct)
No context found.
Stephen Weeks. Understanding trust management systems. In Proceedings of 2001.
Understanding Trust and Security - Lamsal (2001) (2 citations) (Correct)
No context found.
Weeks, S., Understanding Trust Management Systems, IEEE, 2001
Online articles have much greater impact More about CiteSeer.IST Add search form to your site Submit documents Feedback
CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC