1 / 32

A Survey of Trust Management Systems

A Survey of Trust Management Systems. Speaker: Dalal Al- Arayed PhD-IT Student Supervised by: João Pedro Sousa, PhD Assistant Professor, CS, GMU . Outline. What is Trust? What is Trust Management? Types of Models Main Problem Domains Trust Management Approaches

Michelle
Download Presentation

A Survey of Trust Management Systems

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Survey of Trust Management Systems Speaker: Dalal Al-Arayed PhD-IT Student Supervised by: João Pedro Sousa, PhD Assistant Professor, CS, GMU

  2. Outline • What is Trust? • What is Trust Management? • Types of Models • Main Problem Domains • Trust Management Approaches • Genealogy of Models Covered • Description of Models • Conclusion • Evolution of Trust Management Models

  3. What is Trust? • Sociologist Diego Gambetta: • Trust is a particular level of the subjective prob. with which an agent will perform a particular action, before [we] can monitor such action and in a context in which it affects [our] own action.

  4. What is Trust? Cont. Trust is context-dependent, dynamic & non-monotonic. Types of Trust Interpersonal (agent & context specific) Structural (system within which trust exists) Dispositional (independent of agent & context)

  5. What is Trust Management ? • “Trust Management” was first coined by Blaze et. al 1996 • a coherent framework for the study of security policies, security credentials and trust relationships. • Two of the first TM systems PolicyMaker and KeyNote.

  6. Two Types of Models Trust Management models Certificate-based Reputation-based (behavior observed directly or indirectly) Recommendations: trust information shared among peers

  7. Main Problem Domains • Service Provision • Blaze et.al (1996, 1998)- PolicyMaker & Keynote • Abdul-Rahman & Hailes (2000) • Aberer & Despotovic (2001) • Capra (2004)- hTRUST • McNamara et al.(2006) • Quercia & Hailes (2006)-MATE • Routing • Buchegger et al. (2002)-CONFIDANT • Cahill et al. (2003)-SECURE • Quercia et al. (2006)-STRUDEL

  8. Trust Management Approaches • Individual Initiative (Anarchist) • each agent is responsible for his own fate. • Global Trust • each peer in the system has a unique global trust value that other peers can access. • Federated Trust • management of trust-related activities across multiple and heterogeneous security domains and autonomous systems. • deals with strategies for managing inter-domain behaviors

  9. AT&T Labs-Policy Maker (1996)KeyNote(1998) Abdul-Rahman & Hailes (2000) Aberer & Despotovic (2001) CONFIDANT (2002) Anarchist Trust SECURE (2003) Global Trust Federated Trust EigenTrust (2003) Chun & Bavier(2004) UCL- hTRUST (2004)McNamara et al. (2006) STRUDEL (2006)MATE (2006) Donato et al. (2007) Bhargav et al.(2007) Genealogy of Models

  10. Genealogy of Models • Term: “Trust Management” • PKI environments • Certificate-based Trust Model • Binds keys to actions AT&T Labs-Policy Maker (1996)KeyNote(1998) Abdul-Rahman & Hailes (2000) Aberer & Despotovic (2001) CONFIDANT (2002) SECURE (2003) EigenTrust (2003) Chun & Bavier(2004) UCL- hTRUST (2004)McNamara et al. (2006) STRUDEL (2006)MATE (2006) Donato et al. (2007) Bhargav et al.(2007)

  11. Local policies, authenticated credentials, action string Application PolicyMaker INPUT OUTPUT yes/no or additional requirements for request to be acceptable PolicyMaker & Keynote (1996, 1998) • Appears like a db query engine to the application. • do not directly enforce policy; they only provide advice to the applications that call it.

  12. Genealogy of Models • Reputation-based Trust Model • Agents Autonomously reason about Trust • Each Agent- Db of recorded experience. • Recommendations exchanged AT&T Labs-Policy Maker (1996)KeyNote(1998) Abdul-Rahman & Hailes (2000) Aberer & Despotovic (2001) CONFIDANT (2002) SECURE (2003) EigenTrust (2003) Chun & Bavier(2004) UCL- hTRUST (2004)McNamara et al. (2006) STRUDEL (2006)MATE (2006) Donato et al. (2007) Bhargav et al.(2007)

  13. Genealogy of Models AT&T Labs-Policy Maker (1996)KeyNote(1998) • Reputation-based Trust Model • Stored & shared data is exclusively negative(complaints) • Distributed Storage Abdul-Rahman & Hailes (2000) Aberer & Despotovic (2001) CONFIDANT (2002) SECURE (2003) EigenTrust (2003) Chun & Bavier(2004) UCL- hTRUST (2004)McNamara et al. (2006) STRUDEL (2006)MATE (2006) Donato et al. (2007) Bhargav et al.(2007)

  14. Genealogy of Models • Detection & isolation of misbehaved nodes • Neighborhood watch • shared data is exclusively negative (warnings) • Local storage of trust values AT&T Labs-Policy Maker (1996)KeyNote(1998) Abdul-Rahman & Hailes (2000) Aberer & Despotovic (2001) CONFIDANT (2002) SECURE (2003) EigenTrust (2003) Chun & Bavier(2004) UCL- hTRUST (2004)McNamara et al. (2006) STRUDEL (2006)MATE (2006) Donato et al. (2007) Bhargav et al.(2007)

  15. CONFIDANT (2002) -EPFL

  16. Genealogy of Models • Incorporates trust model & risk model • Distinguishes between unknown and distrusted entities • Enables delegation of trust evaluation • Local storage of trust values AT&T Labs-Policy Maker (1996)KeyNote(1998) Abdul-Rahman & Hailes (2000) Aberer & Despotovic (2001) CONFIDANT (2002) SECURE (2003) EigenTrust (2003) Chun & Bavier(2004) UCL- hTRUST (2004)McNamara et al. (2006) STRUDEL (2006)MATE (2006) Donato et al. (2007) Bhargav et al.(2007)

  17. SECURE Project(2003)-EU

  18. Genealogy of Models • Distributed trust models (Anarchist) • Local storage of trust values AT&T Labs-Policy Maker (1996)KeyNote(1998) Abdul-Rahman & Hailes (2000) Aberer & Despotovic (2001) CONFIDANT (2002) SECURE (2003) EigenTrust (2003) Chun & Bavier(2004) UCL- hTRUST (2004)McNamara et al. (2006) STRUDEL (2006)MATE (2006) Donato et al. (2007) Bhargav et al.(2007)

  19. hTRUST (2004)-UCL • Trust Model that facilitates trust formation, dissemination and evolution. • Human Trust- customizing functions capture user’s trust disposition. • Detect & isolate malicious recommenders

  20. hTrust(2004)-Locally Stored Data Aggregate Trust Tuple Tacit Tuples Portfolio of Credentials ( )SKrecommender

  21. hTRUST (2004)

  22. McNamara et al. (2006)- UCL • Trustworthiness – enables predictions about actual QoS given promised QoS • Mobility introduced as parameter for decision making • service requester and provider co-located for sufficient time to complete service delivery • Mobility pattern: based on past journeys.

  23. McNamara et al. (2006)- UCL • Agent makes request for service • Co-located agents respond • Promised QoS • Mobility Pattern • Selection to maximize Requestor’s Utility

  24. STRUDEL (2006)- UCL • Coalition Peering Domain • Tragedy of the commons • STRUDEL: distributed framework • Approach for detecting malicious nodes based on the 2-ACK scheme • Trust Model • Forwarding mechanism (decision model).

  25. STRUDEL(2006)- 2 ACK Scheme • If X does not receive ack from Y, Y is marked as unresponsive. • If X does not receive ack from Z, Y is marked as suspicious • Y did not send the packet to Z • or Y relied on an untrustworthy peer Z. X Y Z

  26. MATE (2006)- UCL Attempts integrated mgt of trust & risk for decision making • Expected utility theory incorporates trust info of sources, risk attitude of user, & context (location type) • Risk restricted to timeliness of delivery.

  27. MATE (2006)- Limitations • risks scenario if component suppliers do not provide software within the agreed time ranges. • Do not examine the potential risks from the way a software component actually operates. • This situation might arise if the software component is signed with the author's key, thus guaranteeing the software integrity, and author is highly trusts.

  28. Evolution of Trust Models

  29. Evolution of Trust Models- Cont.

  30. Questions?

  31. References • Abdul-Rahman, A. and Hailes, S. “Supporting Trust in Virtual Communities”. In Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2000. • Aberer, K. and Despotovic, Z. “Managing Trust in a Peer-2-Peer Information System”. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Atlanta, USA, November 2001. • Bhargav-Spantzel, A., Squicciarini, A. and Bertino, E. “Trust Negotiation in Identity Management”. In IEEESecurity and Privacy, volume 5, issue 2, pages 55—63, March 2007. • Blaze, M., Feigenbaum, J. and Lacy, J. “Decentralized Trust Management”. In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 164--173, Oakland, CA, May 1996. • Blaze, M., Feigenbaum, J. and Keromytis, A. “KeyNote: Trust Management for Public-Key Infrastructures”. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Security Protocols, volume 1550 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 59--63, Cambridge, UK, April 1998. Springer-Verlag. • Blaze, M., Feigenbaum, J., Ioannidis, J. and Keromytis, A. “The KeyNote Trust Management System, Version 2. RFC-2704”. IETF, September 1999. • Blaze, M., Feigenbaum, J., Ioannidis, J. and Keromytis, A. “The Role of Trust Management in Distributed Systems Security”. In Secure Internet Programming: Security Issues for Mobile and Distributed Objects, pages 185--210, 1999. • Buchegger, S. and Le Boudec, J. “Performance Analysis of the CONFIDANT Protocol: Cooperation of Nodes — Fairness in Dynamic Ad-hoc Networks”. In Proceedings of IEEE/ACM Symposium on Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and Computing (MobiHOC), Lausanne, CH, June 2002.

  32. References- Cont. Cahill, V., Gray, E., Seigneur, J., Jensen, C., Chen, Y., Shand, B., Dimmock, N., Twigg, A., Bacon, J., English, C., Wagealla, W., Terzis, S., Nixon,P., Serugendo, G., Bryce,C., Carbone, M., Krukow, K.and Nielsen, M. “Using Trust for Secure Collaboration in Uncertain Environments”. In IEEE Pervasive Computing Mobile and Ubiquitous Computing, volume 2, issue 3, pages 52-61, July-Sept. 2003. Capra, L. “Engineering human trust in mobile system collaborations”. In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, pages 107-116, Newport Beach, CA, USA, November 2004. ACM Press. Chun, B. and Bavier, A. “Decentralized Trust Management and Accountability in Federated Systems”. In Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference of System Sciences, Jan 2004. Donato,D., Paniccia, M., Selis, M., Castillo, C., Cortese, G. and Leonardi, S. “New metrics for reputation Management in P2P networks”. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Adversarial Information retrieval on the web, May 2007. ACM. Kamvar, S., Schlosser, M., Garcia-Molina, H. “The Eigentrust Algorithm for Reputation Management in P2P Networks.” In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on WWW, New York, USA, ACM Press, pages 640--651, 2003. Mcnamara, L., Mascolo, C. and Capra, L. "Trust and Mobility aware Service Provision for Pervasive Computing". In Int. Workshop on Requirements and Solutions for Pervasive Software Infrastructures (co-located with Pervasive 2006), Dublin, Ireland, May 2006. Quercia, D., Lad, M., Hailes, S., Capra, L. and Bhatti, S. “STRUDEL: Supporting Trust in the Dynamic Establishment of peering coaLitions”. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, Dijon, France, April 2006. Quercia, D. and Hailes, S. “MATE: Mobility and Adaptation with Trust and Expected-utility”. International Journal Internet Technology and Secured Transactions (IJITST), volume 1, 2007.

More Related