<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>

COPY SCRIPT

For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.eu

Claim

Using Argumentation Logic for Firewall Policy Specification and Analysis

descriptionPublicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Part of book or chapter of book , Conference object 15 Oct 2006Springer Berlin Heidelberg

Arosha K. Bandara; Antonis C. Kakas; Emil Lupu; Alessandra Russo;

doi: 10.1007/11907466_16

Using Argumentation Logic for Firewall Policy Specification and Analysis

- Summary
- Subjects
- References
  (12)
- Metrics

Abstract

Firewalls are important perimeter security mechanisms that imple-ment an organisation's network security requirements and can be notoriously difficult to configure correctly. Given their widespread use, it is crucial that network administrators have tools to translate their security requirements into firewall configuration rules and ensure that these rules are consistent with each other. In this paper we propose an approach to firewall policy specification and analysis that uses a formal framework for argumentation based preference reasoning. By allowing administrators to define network abstractions (e.g. subnets, protocols etc) security requirements can be specified in a declarative manner using high-level terms. Also it is possible to specify preferences to express the importance of one requirement over another. The use of a formal framework means that the security requirements defined can be automatically analysed for inconsistencies and firewall configurations can be automatically generated. We demonstrate that the technique allows any inconsistency property, including those identified in previous research, to be specified and automatically checked and the use of an argumentation reasoning framework provides administrators with information regarding the causes of the inconsistency.

Related Organizations

Imperial College London
United Kingdom
Imperial College London (ICL)
Department of Computing Imperial College London
United Kingdom
Department of Computing, Imperial College London
Imperial College London
Finland

View all View all

Subjects by Vocabulary

Microsoft Academic Graph classification: Computer security computer.software_genre computer Application firewall Computer science Firewall (construction) Network security business.industry business Argumentation theory

12 references, page 1 of 2

[1] E. S. Al-Shaer and H. H. Hamed. "Firewall Policy Advisor for Anomaly Doscovery and Rule Editing." In Proceedings of 8th IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management, Colarado Springs, CO, IEEE, March 2003.

[2] Cisco. "Cisco PIX Firewall Configuration White Paper (DOCID: 68815), http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/ezvpn-asa-svr-871-rem.pdf", Cisco Inc, 2006.

[3] E. S. Al-Shaer and H. H. Hamed. "Discovery of Policy Anomalies in Distributed Firewalls." In Proceedings of 23rd IEEE Communications Society Conference (INFOCOM), Hong Kong, IEEE, March 2004.

[4] P. M. Dung (1995). "On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games." Artificial Intelligence(77): 321-357, 1995. [OpenAIRE]

[5] A. Bondarenko, P. M. Dung, R. A. Kowalski, and F. Toni (1997). "An abstract argumentation theoretic approach to default reasoning." Artificial Intelligence 93: 63-101, 1997. [OpenAIRE]

[6] A. Kakas, P. Mancerella, and P. M. Dung. "The acceptability semantics for logic programs." In Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Logic Programming, Santa Marherita Ligure, Italy, 1994. [OpenAIRE]

[7] H. Prakken and G. Sartor. "A system for defeasible argumentation, with defeasible priorities." In Proceedings of International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning, Springer-Verlag, LNAI 1085, 1996. [OpenAIRE]

[8] Gorgias. "Argumentation and Abduction, http://www2.cs.ucy.ac.cy/~nkd/gorgias/",

[9] Y. Dimopoulos, B. Nebel, and F. Toni (2002). "On the Computational Complexity of Assumption-based Argumentation for Default Reasoning." Artificial Intelligence 141: 57- 78, 2002. [OpenAIRE]

[10] A. Mayer, A. Wool, and E. Ziskind (2006). "Offline firewall analysis." International Journal on Information Security 5(3): 125-144, 2006.

chevron_left
1
2
chevron_right

Impact byBIP!

	citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).	43
	popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.	Average
	influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).	Average
	impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.	Average

Usage byUsageCounts

visibility	views	0
download	downloads	60

	citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).	43
	popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.	Average
	influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).	Average
	impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.	Average

BIP!

60
downloads
Powered by

Found an issue? Give us feedback

download

Average