Impartial Anticipation in Runtime-Verification

Dong, Wei; Leucker, Martin; Schallhart, Christian

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-88387-6_33

Cited by 18 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The check is done against the implemented system before conducting the runtime monitoring. In addition, as the semantics of the runtime monitoring, we have adapted what is used in runtime verification techniques as a standard [3]. The semantics are clearer than other heuristic-based approaches.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Runtime monitoring of cross-cutting policy

Nakajima

Ubayashi²,

Hokamura³

2009

2009 ICSE Workshop on Aspect-Oriented Requirements Engineering and Architecture Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In open systems, certain unfavorable situations due to unanticipated user behavior may be seen, which results in a violation of cross-cutting policy. This paper proposes a runtime monitoring method to check such problems. Since there is a large gap, a certain link is needed between the policy and runtime execution method. We employ a twostep checking approach; an offline symptom checking and a runtime monitoring. The ingredient to tie the two steps is a Linear-time Temporal Logic formula for the cross-cutting policy to look at.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the contrary, ϕ can be said true for the finite trace when ¬ϕ is known to be violated. Therefore, semantics of runtime anticipation monitor ϕ AM are defined as below [3].…”

Section: Semantics Of Ltl Formula 2 Atomic Propositions In the Formulamentioning

confidence: 99%

Runtime monitoring of cross-cutting policy

Nakajima

Ubayashi²,

Hokamura³

2009

2009 ICSE Workshop on Aspect-Oriented Requirements Engineering and Architecture Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, we always expect that the violation can be detected by the monitor as early as possible. So a mechanism which can give the impartial and anticipatory verdict on whether there are some infinite executions satisfy a correctness property or not by considering its finite prefixes is proposed [7] [8].…”

Section: B Anticipatory Semantics and Anticipatory Monitor For Ltlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Security Goals Assurance Based on Software Active Monitoring

Zhao

Dong

Leucker

et al. 2011

2011 Fifth International Conference on Secure Software Integration and Reliability Improvement

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Access control is a vital security mechanism in today's operating systems, and the security policies dictating the security relevant behaviors is lengthy and complex, for example in Security-Enhanced Linux (SELinux). It is extremely difficult to verify the consistency between the security policies and the security goals desired by applications. In this paper, we present how to predict whether the information flow security goal is violated or not during runtime, how to generate the corresponding control actions on-line when divergence is detected and how to apply these actions in time based on software active monitoring technique. The symbolic security information flow model of SElinux is generated from a formalization of the access control mechanism which can be used to generate the N-step ahead projection of the future behavior. Information flow security goals are expressed in linear temporal logic (LTL) which provides clear description of the objectives desired by applications. Anticipatory monitor is generated from LTL formula automatically. We consider an on-line scheme where after the occurrence of an event, the next control action is determined on the basis of the N-step ahead projection of the future behavior. This procedure is repeated after the occurrence of next security relevant event. Thus, a closed-loop system is generated that all behavior sequences will satisfy the security goals.

show abstract

“…A monitor that detects good (resp. bad) prefixes has been termed anticipatory in [9] as it not only states something about the past, but also about the future: once a good (resp. bad) prefix has been detected, no matter how the system would evolve in an indefinite future, the property would remain satisfied (resp.…”

Section: Complexity Of Monitoring In the Propositional Casementioning

confidence: 99%

From Propositional to First-Order Monitoring

Bauer

Küster

Vegliach

2013

Runtime Verification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main purpose of this paper is to introduce a first-order temporal logic, LTL FO , and a corresponding monitor construction based on a new type of automaton, called spawning automaton. Specifically, we show that monitoring a specification in LTL FO boils down to an undecidable decision problem. The proof of this result revolves around specific ideas on what we consider a "proper" monitor. As these ideas are general, we outline them first in the setting of standard LTL, before lifting them to the setting of first-order logic and LTL FO . Although due to the above result one cannot hope to obtain a complete monitor for LTL FO , we prove the soundness of our automatabased construction and give experimental results from an implementation. These seem to substantiate our hypothesis that the automata-based construction leads to efficient runtime monitors whose size does not grow with increasing trace lengths (as is often observed in similar approaches). However, we also discuss formulae for which growth is unavoidable, irrespective of the chosen monitoring approach.

show abstract

Impartial Anticipation in Runtime-Verification

Cited by 18 publications

References 14 publications

Runtime monitoring of cross-cutting policy

Runtime monitoring of cross-cutting policy

Security Goals Assurance Based on Software Active Monitoring

From Propositional to First-Order Monitoring

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About