DOCSLIB.ORG

A Comparison of Trust Models Marc Sel Director Pwc Agenda

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Comparison of Trust Models Marc Sel Director Pwc Agenda A Comparison of Trust Models Marc Sel Director PwC Agenda • Introduction • Trust • Overview of selected trust models • ICAO PKD (PKI Directory) • EU LOTL (List of Trusted Lists) • US FICAM (Federal Identity, Credential, and Access Management) • POW models (Proof Of Work) • Comparison • Appendix • Abbreviations • Further references 2 Introduction • Scope of this presentation: application level trust models • This encompasses components in different categories: • Computational trust • Technical/operational trust • Legal/regulatory • Trust model typically combines components from these categories • For this presentation the ‘rest of the service stack’, i.e. hardware, OS, etc. are excluded 3 Trust “Trust (or, symmetrically, distrust) is a particular level of the subjective probability with which an agent assesses that another agent or group of agents will perform a particular action, both before he can monitor such action (or independently of his capacity ever to be able to monitor it) and in a context in which it affects his own action. When we say we trust someone or that someone is trustworthy, we implicitly mean that the probability that he will perform an action that is beneficial or at least not detrimental to us is high enough for us to consider engaging in some form of cooperation with him.” Source: Diego Gambetta. Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations - can we trust trust? 1988. 4 Trust model 1: ICAO PKD Established in 2007 to support global interoperability of ePassport validation to act as a central broker to manage the exchange of certificates and certificate revocation lists. ICAO Council created PKD MOU ICAO PKD Board ICAO PKD ICAO Members Governance PKD Board Rules of Procedure Operation Procedure to Determine the PKD Board Composition Replacement of PKD Board Members Procedure for Handling Operational Complaints Procedure for MOU Amendments Procedure for PKD Fee Schedule Procedures for the ICAO PKD Regulations for the ICAO PKD Netrust (SG) 5 Trust model 1: ICAO PKD ICAO scheme for chip integrity through PA Issuing State A Relying State B CS Certificates CSCA CS revocation Signs IS DSCA [BAC] certificate ICAO PKD PA Verifies SAC SOD DS Certificates Issuing Authority [AA] DS CRL [EAC] DSCA May optionally contain DS certificate ISO/IEC 14443 ISO/IEC 7816-4 Signs SOD eMRTD from Issuing State A 6 Trust model 2: EU LOTL EA EU LOTL List of Trusted National Lists Accreditation Body Trust Lists per Member State Accredits Conformity Supervisory Assessment Body (SB) Body (CAB) Report Assess Supervises TSP 7 Trust model 3: US FICAM 8 Trust Model 3 - US FICAM WHAT - Federal Identity, Credential, and Access Management (FICAM) Program tasked with aligning the Identity Management activities of the US Government. FICAM’s focus is to assure the security and privacy of Government to Citizen (G2C), Government to Business (G2B) and Government to Government (G2G) digital interactions and services. WHY - HSPD-12 - Information Sharing Environment ISE - Need for Federal HOW • Federal CIO Council established an ICAM Subcommittee, and a ICAM Segmented Architecture was established as per the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA), in a 5 layer Segmented Architecture (Performance, Business, Technology, Services, Data) • General Services Administration (GSA) operates FICAM testing program with oversight from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) • Concept of Trust Framework Providers (TFP) • The TFPAP defines a process whereby the government can assess the efficacy of the Trust Frameworks for federal purposes so that an Agency service can trust an electronic identity credential provided to it at a known Level of Assurance (LOA) • LOAs originate from OMB Memorandum M-04-04, E-Authentication Guidance for Federal agencies, 2003, supplemented by NIST SP 800-63-2 9 @GSA Source: http://www.idmanagement.gov/approved-identity-services Trust Model 4 POW - Bitcoin • The Bitcoin Ecosystem allegedly originated from software developed by Satoshi Nakamoto and released in January 2009 • With regard to cryptography, based on a combination of Elliptic Curve Cryptography, RIPEMD and SHA256 hashing. • Bitcoin Reference Client = ‘full client’ with wallet, miner, blockchain copy and network node • Various versions of ‘partial clients’ are implemented too • The BTC software is now maintained by volunteer open-source community coordinated by four core developers. • As of April 2013, Satoshi Nakamoto was estimated to have obtained 1,814,400 BTC, of which he still owned 1,148,800 BTC. 11 How does Bitcoin work? Core model Reference Client (‘Full node’) Persistent Temporary Wallet Miner Wallet’s new trx Keypair (ECC) Prepare candidate block Miner’s candidate Address RIPEMD/SHA256 Attempt to find nonce Network node Blockchain (full copy) block Propagation Exchange P2P 12 Why Trust Bitcoin? . “Distributed Consensus based on Proof of Work” . Without a central repository or trusted administrator, why should any person accept BTC? BTC is designed to address three challenges to BTC authenticity: 1) Is this BTC really from the payor? – BTC’s include a digital signature with payor identification (similar to those used to authenticate typical Internet transactions) 2) Is the payee receiving a “real” BTC? – BTC’s must contain data meeting certain mathematical rules. The data is easily validated as meeting the rules, but fabricating this data requires immense computing power. 3) Has the payor used the same BTC to pay another payee? – The BTC data contains a history of its use, so payee’s can easily validate that the BTC has not been used multiple times by the same payor. 13 Comparison ICAO PKD eIDAS US FICAM Bitcoin (blockchain) Actor: initiator ICAO Council European Fed CIO Council "Satoshi Commission / (administrative) Nakamoto" European Parliament (legislative) Actor: PKD Board EC/EP OMB P2P model with governor/oversig reference ht implementation Actor: operator Netrust (SG) EC and Member GSA and TFS Individual nodes States program and exchanges Actor: assessors Self-assessment SB, EA and CABs GSA-TFPAP, TFP AAs n/a Actor: subscribers Travellers from ICAO EU Citizens C2G/B2G Anyone members Actor: relying IS of visited countries Primarily PS Fed Agencies Anyone parties 14 Comparison ICAO PKD eIDAS US FICAM Bitcoin (blockchain) Objective Worldwide authenticity Enhance trust in US electronic Identity Worldwide of travel document & electronic plus management of dematerialised bearer transactions (EU eID credentials and money and Trust Services) for access, of NP for (fiduciary) the Internal Market, Federal Gov for Natural and Legal Persons Mechanism MOU EU Regulation FICAM Program Voluntary (mandatory for (ICAM, FPKI, TFS, participation Member States) + ESO HSPD-12, FIPS 201) - M460 "rules for participation" Impacts Participating States EU-based IdPs that US Fed Agencies and Payer/payees want to have their private sector TFPs willing to accept credentials recognised that want to have bitcoins by MS public sector their credentials Relying Parties. TSPs trusted by US Fed that want their Agencies services to have legal effect. 15 Comparison ICAO PKD eIDAS US FICAM Bitcoin (blockchain) Structuring Participation by eMRTD Notification for eID Authority To Offer Mining (finding a principle Authority (EMA) (low, substantial, Services (ATOS) hashvalue that high), discretionary through TFS program meets specific qualification of TS for service delivery to constraints) (electronic, advanced, FedGov qualified) with supervision Conformity Registration procedure MS notification of eID TFS ATOS and TFP n/a mechanism and test bench to EC/MS SB (OIX, Kantara, …) procedure registration in LOTL, assessment MS SB's TL Supporting ISO/X.509 ETSI/CEN M460 ISPPAP, NIST SP 800 Compliance to hw/sw/standards series and FIPS 201 reference (PIV) implementation Regulations PKD Regulations EU 910/2014 + IAs FICAM (supported by Electronic money SP 800-63) - FISMA regulations (supported by SP 800- 53) 16 Comparison ICAO PKD eIDAS US FICAM Bitcoin (blockchain) Machine readable Machine readable error LOTL and TLs TFP metadata Blockchain information codes for non- conformant entries in the PKD Liability ICAO MOU Art 6: ICAO Identity (Art. 11): in X- Identity proofing: Own exempt, participants for border trx, notifying CAB, but TFPAP responsibility. their own MS, issuer, operator limited to technical When using a errors/omissions of the authentication compliance service provider, procedure. Trust some contractual Services (Art. 13): liability may be TSPs provided 17 Conclusion • At cryptographic level, there are no business semantics involved, hence the technical trust model is simple • Application level trust models have been created to solve a particular problem, not a generic one • Defining and comparing such trust models is not simple • In a nutshell: • ICAO PKD distributes certificates on the basis of a MOU • EU eIDAS aims at providing the legal foundation for STORK and at providing legal effect for electronic trust services artefacts • US FICAM offers an identity framework with no legal effect as it is limited to the technical aspect • POW schemes are different, both in their technology and in their (lack of) liability and legal effect 18 Appendix Abbreviations • AAs – Assurance Assessors (US CAB for FICAM) • CAB – Conformity Assessment Body (ISO concept) • EC – European Commission • EP – European Parliament • ESO – European Standard Organisations (CEN/CENELEC/ETSI) • GSA – • IA – Implementing Acts • ICAM – Identity, Credentials and Access Management • ICAO – International Civil Aviation Authority
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Understanding Graph-Based Trust Evaluation in Online Social Networks: Methodologies and Challenges
    A Understanding Graph-based Trust Evaluation in Online Social Networks: Methodologies and Challenges Wenjun Jiang, Hunan University Guojun Wang, Central South University Md Zakirul Alam Bhuiyan, Temple University Jie Wu, Temple University Online social networks (OSNs) are becoming a popular method of meeting people and keeping in touch with friends. OSNs resort to trust evaluation models and algorithms, as to improve service qualities and enhance user experiences. Much research has been done to evaluate trust and predict the trustworthiness of a target, usually from the view of a source. Graph-based approaches make up a major portion of the existing works, in which the trust value is calculated through a trusted graph (or trusted network, web of trust, multiple trust chains). In this paper, we focus on graph-based trust evaluation models in OSNs, particularly in computer science literature. We first summarize the features of OSNs and the properties of trust. Then, we comparatively review two categories of graph-simplification based and graph-analogy based approaches, and discuss their individual problems and challenges. We also analyze the common challenges of all graph-based models. To provide an integrated view of trust evaluation, we conduct a brief review of its pre-and-post processes, i.e., the preparation and the validation of trust models, including information collection, performance evaluation, and related applications. Finally, we identify some open challenges that all trust models are facing. Categories and Subject Descriptors: A.1 [Introductory and Survey]; C.2.4 [Computer-Communication Networks]: Distributed Systems General Terms: Design, Reliability, Management Additional Key Words and Phrases: trusted graph, trust evaluation, simplification, analogy, online social networks (OSNs), trust models.
    [Show full text]
  • Decentralized Reputation Model and Trust Framework Blockchain and Smart Contracts
    IT 18 062 Examensarbete 30 hp December 2018 Decentralized Reputation Model and Trust Framework Blockchain and Smart contracts Sujata Tamang Institutionen för informationsteknologi Department of Information Technology Abstract Decentralized Reputation Model and Trust Framework: Blockchain and Smart contracts Sujata Tamang Teknisk- naturvetenskaplig fakultet UTH-enheten Blockchain technology is being researched in diverse domains for its ability to provide distributed, decentralized and time-stamped Besöksadress: transactions. It is attributed to by its fault-tolerant and zero- Ångströmlaboratoriet Lägerhyddsvägen 1 downtime characteristics with methods to ensure records of immutable Hus 4, Plan 0 data such that its modification is computationally infeasible. Trust frameworks and reputation models of an online interaction system are Postadress: responsible for providing enough information (e.g., in the form of Box 536 751 21 Uppsala trust score) to infer the trustworthiness of interacting entities. The risk of failure or probability of success when interacting with an Telefon: entity relies on the information provided by the reputation system. 018 – 471 30 03 Thus, it is crucial to have an accurate, reliable and immutable trust Telefax: score assigned by the reputation system. The centralized nature of 018 – 471 30 00 current trust systems, however, leaves the valuable information as such prone to both external and internal attacks. This master's thesis Hemsida: project, therefore, studies the use of blockchain technology as an http://www.teknat.uu.se/student infrastructure for an online interaction system that can guarantee a reliable and immutable trust score. It proposes a system of smart contracts that specify the logic for interactions and models trust among pseudonymous identities of the system.
    [Show full text]
  • Maintaining Security and Trust in Large Scale Public Key Infrastructures
    Maintaining Security and Trust in Large Scale Public Key Infrastructures Vom Fachbereich Informatik der Technischen Universit¨atDarmstadt genehmigte Dissertation zur Erlangung des Grades Doktor-Ingenieur (Dr.-Ing.) von Dipl. Wirtsch.-Inform. Johannes Braun geboren in Herrenberg. Referenten: Prof. Dr. Johannes Buchmann Prof. Dr. Max M¨uhlh¨auser Tag der Einreichung: 16.03.2015 Tag der m¨undlichen Pr¨ufung: 30.04.2015 Hochschulkennziffer: D 17 Darmstadt 2015 List of Publications [B1] Johannes Braun. Ubiquitous support of multi path probing: Preventing man in the middle attacks on Internet communication. IEEE Conference on Com- munications and Network Security (CNS 2014) - Poster Session, pages 510{ 511, IEEE Computer Society, 2014. Cited on pages 52 and 173. [B2] Johannes Braun, Florian Volk, Jiska Classen, Johannes Buchmann, and Max M¨uhlh¨auser.CA trust management for the Web PKI. Journal of Computer Security, 22: 913{959, IOS Press, 2014. Cited on pages 9, 66, 89, and 104. [B3] Johannes Braun, Johannes Buchmann, Ciaran Mullan, and Alex Wiesmaier. Long term confidentiality: a survey. Designs, Codes and Cryptography, 71(3): 459{478, Springer, 2014. Cited on page 161. [B4] Johannes Braun and Gregor Rynkowski. The potential of an individ- ualized set of trusted CAs: Defending against CA failures in the Web PKI. International Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom) - PAS- SAT 2013, pages 600{605, IEEE Computer Society, 2013. Extended version: http://eprint.iacr.org/2013/275. Cited on pages 9, 32, and 57. [B5] Johannes Braun, Florian Volk, Johannes Buchmann, and Max M¨uhlh¨auser. Trust views for the Web PKI. Public Key Infrastructures, Services and Appli- cations - EuroPKI 2013, vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Scalable Blockchains for Computational Trust
    A Scalable Blockchain Approach for Trusted Computation and Verifiable Simulation in Multi-Party Collaborations Ravi Kiran Raman,∗y Roman Vaculin,y Michael Hind,y Sekou L. Remy,y Eleftheria K. Pissadaki,y Nelson Kibichii Bore,y Roozbeh Daneshvar,y Biplav Srivastava,y and Kush R. Varshneyy ∗University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign yIBM Research Abstract—In high-stakes multi-party policy making based on ology in this paper. machine learning and simulation models involving independent In AI, increasingly complex machine learning models with computing agents, a notion of trust in results is critical in facilitat- ever increasing complexity are being learned on vast datasets. ing transparency, accountability, and collaboration. Using a novel combination of distributed validation of atomic computation Lack of access to the training process and the hyperparameters blocks and a blockchain-based immutable audit mechanism, this used therein do not only hinder scientific reproducibility, work proposes a framework for distributed trust in computations. but also remove any basis to trust the reported results. In In particular we address the scalability problem by reducing particular, applications interested in the trained model might the storage and communication costs using a lossy compression not trust the agent performing the training. Other than sanity scheme. This framework guarantees not only verifiability of final results, but also the validity of local computations, and its cost- checks such as validation datasets, there exists no simpler benefit tradeoffs are studied using a synthetic example of training way to guarantee correctness than complete retraining. This a neural network. is impractical considering the extensive amounts of time and hardware required.
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey of Trust in Computer Science and the Semantic Web
    To appear in Journal of Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 2007. A Survey of Trust in Computer Science and the Semantic Web Donovan Artz and Yolanda Gil Information Sciences Institute University of Southern California 4676 Admiralty Way, Marina del Rey CA 90292 +1 310-822-1511 [email protected] March 15, 2007 Abstract Trust is an integral component in many kinds of human interaction, allowing people to act under uncertainty and with the risk of negative consequences. For example, exchanging money for a service, giving access to your property, and choosing between conflicting sources of information all may utilize some form of trust. In computer science, trust is a widely- used term whose definition differs among researchers and application areas. Trust is an essential component of the vision for the Semantic Web, where both new problems and new applications of trust are being studied. This paper gives an overview of existing trust research in computer science and the Semantic Web. Keywords: Trust, Web of Trust, Policies, Reputation 1 Introduction Trust is a central component of the Semantic Web vision (Berners-Lee 1999; Berners-Lee et al 2001; Berners-Lee et al 2006). The Semantic Web stack (Berners-Lee 2000; Berners-Lee et al 2006) has included all along a trust layer to assimilate the ontology, rules, logic, and proof layers. Trust often refers to mechanisms to verify that the source of information is really who the source claims to be. Signatures and encryption mechanisms should allow any consumer of information to check the sources of that information.
    [Show full text]
  • Decentralized Trust Management: Risk Analysis and Trust Aggregation 1:3
    1 Decentralized Trust Management: Risk Analysis and Trust Aggregation XINXIN FAN, Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China LING LIU, School of Computer Science, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA RUI ZHANG, Institute of Information Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China QUANLIANG JING and JINGPING BI, Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China Decentralized trust management is used as a referral benchmark for assisting decision making by human or intelligence machines in open collaborative systems. During any given period of time, each participant may only interact with a few of other participants. Simply relying on direct trust may frequently resort to random team formation. Thus, trust aggregation becomes critical. It can leverage decentralized trust management to learn about indirect trust of every participant based on past transaction experiences. This paper presents alternative designs of decentralized trust management and their efficiency and robustness from three per- spectives. First, we study the risk factors and adverse effects of six common threat models. Second, we review the representative trust aggregation models and trust metrics. Third, we present an in-depth analysis and comparison of these reference trust aggregation methods with respect to effectiveness and robustness. We show our comparative study results through formal analysis and experimental evaluation. This comprehen- sive study advances the understanding of adverse effects of present and future threats and the robustness of different trust metrics. It may also serve as a guideline for research and development of next generation trust aggregation algorithms and services in the anticipation of risk factors and mischievous threats. CCS Concepts: • General and reference → Surveys and overviews; • Security and privacy → Trust frameworks; • Information systems → Collaborative and social computing systems and tools.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Computational Trust Model (SCTM): a Framework to Facilitate the Selection of Partners
    Social Computational Trust Model (SCTM): A Framework to Facilitate the Selection of Partners 1st Ameneh Deljoo 2nd Tom van Engers 3th Leon Gommans Informatics Institute, Faculty of Science Leibniz Center for Law AirFrance-KLM University of Amsterdam University of Amsterdam Amsterdam, the Netherlands Amsterdam, the Netherlands Amsterdam, the Netherlands [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 4th Cees de Laat Informatics Institute, Faculty of Science University of Amsterdam Amsterdam, the Netherlands [email protected] Abstract—Creating a cyber security alliance among network and private organizations is required to arrange technical domain owners, as a means to minimize security incidents, counter measures. Sharing cyber intelligence among dif- has gained the interest of practitioners and academics in the ferent parties, such as internet & cloud service providers last few years. A cyber security alliance, like any membership and enterprise networks, becomes increasingly important. organization, requires the creation and maintenance of trust Additionally, networks have evolved over the time and among its members, in this case the network domain owners. became more complex and less connected, therefore the To promote the disclosure and sharing of cyber security infor- protection of such a complex network can often only be mation among the network domain owners, a trust framework guaranteed and financed as a shared effort. One of the is needed. benefits of information sharing among the members in an This paper discusses a social computational trust model alliance is improving the decision and policy making in the (SCTM), that helps alliance members to select the right different levels of organization and facilitating the selection partner to collaborate with and perform collective tasks, and of optimal cyber defense tactics during the attack period.
    [Show full text]
  • 101 Survey on Computational Trust and Reputation Models
    Survey on Computational Trust and Reputation Models DIEGO DE SIQUEIRA BRAGA, MARCO NIEMANN, and BERND HELLINGRATH, University of Muenster—ERCIS, Germany FERNANDO BUARQUE DE LIMA NETO, University of Pernambuco, Brazil Over the recent years, computational trust and reputation models have become an invaluable method to im- prove computer-computer and human-computer interaction. As a result, a considerable amount of research has been published trying to solve open problems and improving existing models. This survey will bring addi- tional structure into the already conducted research on both topics. After recapitulating the major underlying concepts, a new integrated review and analysis scheme for reputation and trust models is put forward. Using highly recognized review papers in this domain as a basis, this article will also introduce additional eval- uation metrics to account for characteristics so far unstudied. A subsequent application of the new review schema on 40 top recent publications in this scientific field revealed interesting insights. While the area of computational trust and reputation models is still a very active research branch, the analysis carried out here was able to show that some aspects have already started to converge, whereas others are still subject to vivid discussions. CCS Concepts: • General and reference → Surveys and overviews;•Information systems → Reputation systems;•Security and privacy → Trust frameworks;•Computing methodologies → Knowledge representation and reasoning; Intelligent agents; Additional Key Words and Phrases: Computational trust, reputation management systems ACM Reference format: Diego de Siqueira Braga, Marco Niemann, Bernd Hellingrath, and Fernando Buarque de Lima Neto. 2018. Survey on Computational Trust and Reputation Models. ACM Comput. Surv.
    [Show full text]
  • Asymmetric Trust and Causal Reasoning in Blockchain-Based Ais Percy Venegas1
    Asymmetric Trust and Causal Reasoning in Blockchain-based AIs Percy Venegas1 1Economy Monitor ABSTRACT We use genetic programming evolved networks, vector fields, and signal processing to study time varying-exposures where trust is implied (e.g. a conversion event from attention flow to financial commitment). The datasets are behavioral finance time series (from on-chain data, such as fees, and off-chain data, such as clickstreams), which we use to elaborate on various complexity metrics of causality, through the creation parametric network graphs. We discuss the related methods and applications and conclude with the notion of social memory irreversibility and value by memory as useful constructs that take advantage of the natural fact of the existence of trust asymmetries, that can be operationalized by embedded AIs that use distributed ledgers both as the substrate of their intelligence and as social computers. By being context-aware, those intelligent agents are able to intervene in problematic stressors and contribute to minimizing network fragility. Keywords: systemic risk, behavioral finance, economic complexity, evolutionary computation, computational trust, the blockchain, cryptocurrencies, market microstructure, reality mining. JEL Classification: G02, F63, B17, C53, C58 There is none deceived but he that trusts –Benjamin Franklin Introduction Given the current state of knowledge, it is relatively easy to have artificial intelligent agents to find patterns and to formulate predictions following some objective criteria. But to get become useful in comparison with human intelligence, it is crucial that those agents are able to ask: Why? Posing the question is an exercise on causal reasoning, a realization of the awareness of cause and effect.
    [Show full text]
  • State of the Art of Trust and Reputation Systems in E-Commerce Context
    State of the art of Trust and Reputation Systems in E-Commerce Context H. Rahimi* and H. El Bakkali, Information Security Research Team, University Mohamed V Rabat ENSIAS, Rabat, Morocco. [email protected] *[email protected] Abstract-This article proposes in depth comparative study of the most popular, used and analyzed Trust and Reputation System (TRS) according to the trust and reputation literature and in terms of specific trustworthiness criteria. This survey is realized relying on a selection of trustworthiness criteria that analyze and evaluate the maturity and effectiveness of TRS. These criteria describe the utility, the usability, the performance and the effectiveness of the TRS. We also provide a summary table of the compared TRS within a detailed and granular selection of trust and reputation aspects. I. INTRODUCTION Open electronic markets, online collaboration systems, distributed peer-to-peer applications, online social media require the establishment of mutual trust between service providers and service consumers. In fact, the major concerns of web-based services especially e-commerce applications is to overcome the inherent uncertainties and untrustworthiness risks and enhance the system's robustness and resistance against fraudulent users and distrustful ones. Besides, e-commerce platforms aim at adopting the most efficient approach that helps detect and analyze users' intentions in order to reveal and understand deceitful ones. Otherwise, the underlying purpose of e-commerce services which is to maximize the profit and the rate of purchase, would be threatened and deteriorated by fraudulent and ill-intentioned users. For this reason, Recommender Systems such as Trust and Reputation Systems (TRS), provide essential input for computational trust so as to predict future behaviors of peers basing on the past actions of a peer [1].
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a Theory of Trust in Networks of Humans and Computers
    Presented at the 19th International Workshop on Security Protocols, Cambridge, UK, March 28-30, 2011 (to appear in LNCS, Springer Verlag) Towards a Theory of Trust in Networks of Humans and Computers Virgil Gligor and Jeannette M. Wing Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 [email protected],[email protected] Abstract. We argue that a general theory of trust in networks of hu- mans and computers must be build on both a theory of behavioral trust and a theory of computational trust. This argument is motivated by increased participation of people in social networking, crowdsourcing, human computation, and socio-economic protocols, e.g., protocols mod- eled by trust and gift-exchange games [3, 10, 11], norms-establishing con- tracts [1], and scams [6, 35, 33]. User participation in these protocols re- lies primarily on trust, since on-line veri¯cation of protocol compliance is often impractical; e.g., veri¯cation can lead to undecidable problems, co- NP complete test procedures, and user inconvenience. Trust is captured by participant preferences (i.e., risk and betrayal aversion) and beliefs in the trustworthiness of other protocol participants [11, 10]. Both pref- erences and beliefs can be enhanced whenever protocol non-compliance leads to punishment of untrustworthy participants [11, 23]; i.e., it seems natural that betrayal aversion can be decreased and belief in trustwor- thiness increased by properly de¯ned punishment [1]. We argue that a general theory of trust should focus on the establishment of new trust relations where none were possible before. This focus would help create new economic opportunities by increasing the pool of usable services, removing cooperation barriers among users, and at the very least, taking advantage of \network e®ects." Hence a new theory of trust would also help focus security research in areas that promote trust-enhancement in- frastructures in human and computer networks.
    [Show full text]
  • The Importance of Trust in Computer Security Christian Jensen
    The Importance of Trust in Computer Security Christian Jensen To cite this version: Christian Jensen. The Importance of Trust in Computer Security. 8th IFIP International Conference on Trust Management (IFIPTM), Jul 2014, Singapore, Singapore. pp.1-12, 10.1007/978-3-662-43813- 8_1. hal-01381672 HAL Id: hal-01381672 https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01381672 Submitted on 14 Oct 2016 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution| 4.0 International License The Importance of Trust in Computer Security Christian D. Jensen Department of Applied Mathematics & Computer Science Technical University of Denmark DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark [email protected] Abstract. The computer security community has traditionally regarded security as a “hard” property that can be modelled and formally proven under certain simplifying assumptions. Traditional security technologies assume that computer users are either malicious, e.g. hackers or spies, or benevolent, competent and well informed about the security policies. Over the past two decades, however, computing has proliferated into all aspects of modern society and the spread of malicious software (malware) like worms, viruses and botnets have become an increasing threat.
    [Show full text]