463.2 Foundations

463.2 Foundations UIUC CS463 Computer Security Based on slides provided by Matt Bishop for use with Computer Security: Art and Science

Overview • Access Control Matrices (ACMs) and state transitions on them • Harrison-Ruzzo-Ullman (HRU) result • Take-grant protection model • ACMs and privacy

Required • Reading • Chapter 2, as needed • Section 3.1 • Section 3.2 through the proof of Theorem 3-2 • All of Section 3.3 through the paragraph after Definition 3-6 • The example in Section 3.3 after Corollary 3-2 • Exercises: From 3.9 do 1, 4.

Access Control • Controlling access is a fundamental security problem • Access control policy expresses who is authorized to do what • Read files • Modify data • Access services • Change access

Subjects S = { s1,…,sn } Objects O = { o1,…,om } Rights R = { r1,…,rk } Entries A[si, oj] R A[si, oj] = { rx, …, ry } means subject si has rights rx, …, ry over object oj objects (entities) o1 … oms1 … sn s1 s2 … sn subjects Access Control Matrices

Example 1: File System

Example 2: Siebel Center • Unlock - right to unlock a door • Log - request entry logs from a door

State Transitions • Change the protection state of system • |– represents transition • Xi|– Xi+1: command  moves system from state Xi to Xi+1 • Xi|– *Xi+1: a sequence of commands moves system from state Xi to Xi+1 • Commands often called transformation procedures

Primitive Operations • create subjects; create object o • Creates new row, column in ACM; creates new column in ACM • destroy subjects; destroy object o • Deletes row, column from ACM; deletes column from ACM • enterrintoA[s, o] • Adds r rights for subject s over object o • deleterfromA[s, o] • Removes r rights from subject s over object o

Create Subject • Precondition: sS • Primitive command: create subjects

Create Object • Precondition: oO • Primitive command: create objecto

Add Right • Precondition: sS, oO • Primitive command: enterrintoa[p, y]

Delete Right • Precondition: sS, oO • Primitive command: deleterfroma[p, y]

Destroy Subject • Precondition: sS • Primitive command: destroysubjects

Destroy Object • Precondition: oO • Primitive command: destroyobjecto

Creating File • Process p creates file f with r and w permission command create•file(p, f) create object f; enter own into A[p, f]; enter r into A[p, f]; enter w into A[p, f]; end

Own Right • Usually allows possessor to change entries in ACM column • So owner of object can add, delete rights for others • May depend on what system allows • Can’t give rights to specific (set of) users • Can’t pass copy right to specific (set of) users

Mono-Operational Commands • Make process p the owner of file g command make•owner(p, g) enter own into A[p, g]; end • Mono-operational command • A command with a single primitive operation in its body

Conditional Commands • Let p give qr rights over f, if p owns f command grant•read•file•1(p, f, q) if own in A[p, f] then enter r into A[q, f]; end

Multiple Conditions • Let p give q the r rights over f, if p has rights r and c over f command grant•read•file•2(p, f, q) if r in A[p, f] and c in A[p, f] then enter r into A[q, f]; end

Copy Right • Allows possessor to give rights to another • Often attached to a right, so only applies to that right • r is read right that cannot be copied • rc (r with copy flag) is read right that can be copied • Is copy flag copied when giving r rights? • Depends on model, instantiation of model

Attenuation of Privilege • Principle says you can’t give rights you do not possess • Restricts addition of rights within a system • Usually ignored for owner • Why? Owner gives herself rights, gives them to others, deletes her rights. • Example: let a friend have a copy of the key to your house • Non-example: let a graduate program have a copy of a letter of reference for you

Key Points • Access control matrix simple abstraction mechanism for representing protection state • Transitions alter protection state • 6 primitive operations alter matrix • Transitions can be expressed as commands composed of these operations and, possibly, conditions

Proving Security • Want to prove system “secure” • What does that mean? • Subjects should only have “authorized” rights • E.g. no one except for me can write to my home directory • Easy to check in any given protection state • What about the dynamic protection system?

Formalizing Security • Adding a generic right r to a subject or object that did not have it before is “leaking r” • If a system S, beginning in initial state s0, cannot leak right r, it is secure with respect to the right r. • General property, can simulate: • Leaking a right r on a specific object o • Leaking r to a subject outside a “trusted” set

Deciding Security • Does there exist an algorithm for determining whether a protection system S with initial state s0 is secure with respect to a generic right r?

General Case • Answer: no • Sketch of proof: Reduce halting problem to security problem Turing Machine review: • Infinite tape in one direction • States K, symbols M; distinguished blank b • Transition function (k, m) = (k, m, L) means in state k, symbol m on tape location replaced by symbol m, head moves to left one square, and enters state k • Halting state is qf; TM halts when it enters this state Harrison Ruzzo Ullman 76

Mapping 1 2 3 4 s1 s2 s3 s4 A B C D … s1 A own head s2 B own s3 C k own Current state is k s4 D end

Mapping 1 2 3 4 s1 s2 s3 s4 A B X D … s1 A own head s2 B own s3 X own After (k, C) = (k1, X, R) where k is the current state and k1 the next state s4 D k1 end

Command Mapping (k, C) = (k1, X, R) at intermediate becomes command ck,C(s3,s4) ifowninA[s3,s4] andkinA[s3,s3] and C inA[s3,s3] then deletekfromA[s3,s3]; delete C fromA[s3,s3]; enter X intoA[s3,s3]; enterk1intoA[s4,s4]; end

Mapping 1 2 3 4 5 s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 A B X Y b s1 A own head s2 B own s3 X own After (k1, D) = (k2, Y, R) where k1 is the current state and k2 the next state s4 Y own s5 bk2 end

Command Mapping (k1, D) = (k2, Y, R) at end becomes command crightmostk,C(s4,s5) ifendinA[s4,s4] andk1inA[s4,s4] and D inA[s4,s4] then deleteendfromA[s4,s4]; create subjects5; enterown into A[s4,s5]; enterendintoA[s5,s5]; deletek1fromA[s4,s4]; delete D fromA[s4,s4]; enter Y intoA[s4,s4]; enterk2intoA[s5,s5]; end

Rest of Proof • Protection system exactly simulates a TM • Exactly 1 end right in ACM • 1 right in entries corresponds to state • Thus, at most 1 applicable command • If TM enters state qf, then right has leaked • If security question decidable, then represent TM as above and determine if qf leaks • Implies halting problem decidable • Conclusion: security question undecidable

Mono-Operational Commands • Is security decidable if we restrict commands to be mono-operational? • Answer: yes • Sketch of proof: Consider minimal sequence of commands c1, …, ck to leak the right. • Has no instances of delete, destroy • Can rewrite to have only one create Worst case: insert every right into every entry; with s subjects and o objects initially, and n rights, upper bound is k ≤ n(|S|+1)(|O|+1)

Has no Destroy or Delete • c1…cn-1 (if B then delete r’ from a[p,o]) leaks rights that are µ those leaked by c1…cn-1 • Suppose ck is the rightmost deletion: c1…ck-1 (if B then delete r’ from a[p,o]) ck+1…cn • Rights leaked by this expression are µ those leaked by c1…ck-1ck+1 (if B then delete r’ from a[p,o]) ck+2…cn • So move the deletion to the right and remove it Example case: if B’ then create s

Consolidate Creates to One • Suppose the expression created s1 and s2 and tested rights in a[s1,o1] and a[s2,o2] • Use the same tests for a[s1,o2] = a[s1,o2] [ a[s2,o2] instead with s1 in place of s2

Take-Grant Protection Model • A specific (not generic) system • Set of rules for state transitions • Safety decidable, and in time linear with the size of the system • Goal: find conditions under which rights can be transferred from one entity to another in the system Jones Lipton Snyder 76

System Оobjects (files, …) l subjects (users, processes, …)  don't care (either a subject or an object) G |–x G' apply a rewriting rule x (witness) to G to get G' G |–* G' apply a sequence of rewriting rules (witness) to G to get G' R = { t, g, r, w, … } set of rights

Rules    l l |-   take t t        |- grant g   g l l

More Rules |-   create l l |-  –   l l remove These four rules are called the de jure rules

Example: Shared Buffer • Initially s has grant rights for processes p and q. • S sets up a shared buffer for p,q with the following steps • s creates ({r,w} to new object) b • s grants ({r,w} to b) to p • s grants ({r,w} to b) to p

  tg g ¡ v Symmetry x  y  l  l |–  t t  l l z x creates (tg to new) v z takes (g to v) from x z grants (a to y) to v x takes (a to y) from v Similar result for grant

Islands • tg-path: path of distinct vertices connected by edges labeled t or g • Call them “tg-connected” • island: maximal tg-connected subject-only subgraph • Any right one vertex has can be shared with any other vertex

Example s q t r p s'     g t t g g t      y u v x w

can•share Predicate Definition: can•share(r, x, y, G0) if, and only if, there is a sequence of protection graphs G0, …, Gn such that G0 |–* Gn using only de jure rules and in Gn there is an edge from x to y labeled r.

can•share Properties • If x and y are subjects in an island, then can•share(r, x, y, G0) • Proof by induction using the properties of tg-connected subjects • General result: can•share(r, x, y, G0) is decidable using an algorithm of complexity O(|V| + |E|) where V and E are the vertices and edges in the graph • Proof omitted. Sketch given at the end of 3.3.1.

Graham-Denning ACM Subject executing the commands is x Transferable rights are denoted r* Non-transferable rights are denoted r Graham Denning 72

Privacy APIs Formal Models May Gunter Lee 06

Approach • Formalize legal texts and use model checking to evaluate their static properties. • Compare to policy in practice to find compliance. Command set Selection Model Full Text Privacy commands English English Promela Reference checking

Privacy Fundamentals • Transfer: What is the right of a principal p to transfer an object x to a principal q where x is about a subject r? • Action: What is the right of a principal p to carry out an action that affects the privacy of a principal q? • Creation: Which principals p are allowed to create objects x whose subject is q? • Right Establishment: How are rights established for a principal p? Gunter May Stubblebine 04

463.2 Foundations