Enforcement monitoring wrt. the safety-progress classification of properties

Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 593-600

  Falcone, Yliès ^a   Fernandez, Jean Claude ^a   Mounier, Laurent ^a  

^a VERIMAG   (France)

Author keywords

Monitor; Property; Runtime enforcement; Safety progress; Synthesis

Indexed keywords

CONTROL STATE; FINITE SET; MEMORY DEVICE; RESPONSE PROPERTIES; RUNTIMES;

SET THEORY;

COMPUTER SCIENCE;

EID: 70549102701     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1529282.1529408     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (20)

1. B. Alpern and F. B. Schneider. Defining liveness. Technical report, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA, 1984.
2. AT&T Research. Graph Visualization Software. http://www.graphviz.org, 2007.
3. E. Chang, Z. Manna, and A. Pnueli. The safety-progress classification. Technical report, Stanford University, Dept. of Computer Science, 1992.
4. E. Y. Chang, Z. Manna, and A. Pnueli. Characterization of temporal property classes. In Automata, Languages and Programming, pages 474-486, 1992.
5. Erlingsson and Schneider. SASI enforcement of security policies: A retrospective. In WNSP: New Security Paradigms Workshop. ACM Press, 2000.
6. U. Erlingsson. The inlined reference monitor approach to security policy enforcement. PhD thesis, Ithaca, NY, USA, 2004. Adviser-Fred B. Schneider.
7. U. Erlingsson and F. B. Schneider. IRM enforcement of java stack inspection. In In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 246-255, 2000.
8. Y. Falcone, J.-C. Fernandez, and L. Mounier. Synthesizing Enforcement Monitors wrt. the Safety-Progress Classification of Properties. Technical Report TR-2008-7, Verimag Research Report, 2008.
9. P. W. L. Fong. Access control by tracking shallow execution history. sp, 00:43, 2004.
10. K. W. Hamlen, G. Morrisett, and F. B. Schneider. Computability classes for enforcement mechanisms. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., 28(1):175-205, 2006.
11. G. Kiczales, J. Lamping, A. Mendhekar, C. Maeda, C. Lopes, J.-M. Loingtier, and J. Irwin. Aspect-oriented programming. pages 220-242. Springer-Verlag, 1997.
12. L. Lamport. Proving the correctness of multiprocess programs. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 3(2):125-143, 1977.
13. J. Ligatti, L. Bauer, and D. Walker. Composing Expressive Run-time Security Policies. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, Nov. 07.
14. J. Ligatti, L. Bauer, and D. Walker. Runtime Enforcement of Nonsafety Policies. ACM, Jan. 07.
15. J. Ligatti, L. Bauer, and D. Walker. Enforcing non-safety security policies with program monitors. In ESORICS, pages 355-373, 2005.
16. N. Nethercote and J. Seward. Valgrind: a framework for heavyweight dynamic binary instrumentation. SIGPLAN Not., 42(6):89-100, 2007.
17. F. B. Schneider. Enforceable security policies. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur., 3(1):30-50, 2000.
18. R. S. Streett. Propositional dynamic logic of looping and converse. In STOC '81 - ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 375-383, New York, NY, USA, 1981. ACM.
19. The Apache Jakarta Project. Byte Code Engineering Library. http://jakarta.apache.org/bcel/.
20. M. Viswanathan. Foundations for the run-time analysis of software systems. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2000.