2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.jnca.2016.12.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Elimination of policy conflict to improve the PDP evaluation performance

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, they do not formulate a general method of refinement. Moreover, Deng and Zhang ( 2015 ) argue that conflicts can be eliminated by constructing a special data structure called resource index tree.…”
Section: Related Work and Related Notationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, they do not formulate a general method of refinement. Moreover, Deng and Zhang ( 2015 ) argue that conflicts can be eliminated by constructing a special data structure called resource index tree.…”
Section: Related Work and Related Notationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ngo et al ( 2015 ) propose an XACML logical model and a decision diagram by the data interval partition aggregation. We have done some research about it in Deng and Zhang ( 2015 ); Deng et al ( 2016 ). In addition, Deng et al ( 2019a ) propose the XACML policy evaluation engine XDPMOE based on bitmap storage and HashMap to improve the evaluation efficiency of the XACML policy.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To detect conflicts between rules in a given policy and evaluate access request, Fan Deng et al [20] presented an engine called f orm conf lict. In detail, it detects two types of conflict to be resolved: (i) common resource conflict; and (ii) dependent resource conflict.…”
Section: B Policy Conflict Resolutionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are already some efficient algorithms to statically detect conflicts in access control policies [13,14,15,16,17,18]. The method is generally to look for conflict in all combinations of a number of rules (often only two rules).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%