![]() ![]() you can argue DAC: but fits the "more so" rule. ![]() So both roles can see all the data (no confidentiality) but can only manipulate the fields that they have a particular set of responsibilities for (integrity). ![]() They say let me transfer you back- I see you want this service but that's not my function. When you get transferred to billing you pay your bill and say can I have my service. When you call the cable company to get your pay-per-view the Customer service representative will say I'm sorry let me transfer you to Billing so that you can pay your overdue bill- they know you have an overdue bill but their role prevents them from taking your credit card information directly. RBAC - tends toward databases - a classic example of where you cannot use one of the other systems and must used RBAC is for customer service and billing. There are combination implementations DAC/RBAC the best example of this Active directory roles and permissions. They are not mutually exclusive except for DAC vs MAC. If you use the wrong system you can kludge it to do what you want. When the system or implementation makes decisions (if it is programmed correctly) it will enforce the security requirements. RBAC makes decisions based upon function/roles. MAC makes decisions based upon labeling and then permissions.ĭAC makes decisions based upon permissions only. RBAC supports the security requirement of integrity more so than the others. MAC supports a security requirement of confidentiality more so than the others.ĭAC supports the security requirement of availability more so than the others. The three main security requirements are confidentiality, integrity, and availability. What access control to use always depends on the specific situation and context you're considering.Įach system is used for a different overriding security requirement. It'd be better to make your question specific and tell what system(s) you want to protect, if any. In a corporation, beyond separating your different departments and teams with MAC/RBAC you may allow some DAC for coworkers to share information on your corporate file system. For instance, a UNIX system mostly uses DAC but the root account bypasses DAC privileges. In practice, you'll often use a combination of different paradigms. MAC in itself is vague, there are many many ways to implement it for many systems. The key question is whether you use roles to represent tasks performed on your system and assign roles in a central authority (in which case RBAC is a form of MAC) or if you use roles to let users control permissions on their own objects (leading to multiple roles per object and absolutely no semantics in roles, even though it's theoretically possible). RBAC is designed for separation of duties by letting users select the roles they need for a specific task. ![]() Brewer and Nash or MCS) but can also be used on a single user operating system to implement the principle of least privilege. This is obviously true in corporations (often along with compartmentalization e.g. RBAC is a form of access control which as you said is suitable to separate responsibilities in a system where multiple roles are fulfilled. Reactive access control, Seeing further and Laissez-faire file sharing provide nice examples of research on DAC with users. It allows people to revoke or forward privileges easily and immediately. It might sound obvious, but for instance DAC is very good to let users of an online social network choose who accesses their data. DAC is the way to go to let people manage the content they own. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |