sarnet alliance - de laatdeljoo, ameneh, et al. "the impact of competence and benevolence in a...
TRANSCRIPT
SARNETAlliance
AmenehDeljooCeesdeLaat,TomvanEngers andLeonGommans
SystemsandNetworkingLabUniversityofAmsterdam
Motivation
Ø Defence againstorganized attacks requirescollaborationamongstserviceproviders
Ø Protectionofthenetworkcanoftenonlybeguaranteed andfinanced asasharedeffort
ØNetworkoforganizationsevolve overtimeandbecomemorecomplex
Ø Finda“right”partnerisachallengingtask.Weneedto:Ø Defineamoresophisticated andcomputationallyexecutablemethodtoselectthe“right"partnerforsharingdataandintelligence.
RequirementsToCreateAnAlliance
AllianceStrategy
Organize,MaintainandEvaluateTrustPartnerSelection
RiskEstimation Policies &Commonrules (Governance
framework)
Contributions
• Evaluate,measureandmaintaintrustamongthealliancemembers.• Presentandimplementthecomputationaltrustmodel(SCTM).• RiskestimationthroughtheSCTMmodel.TheSCTMfacilitatesrisk-basedpartnerselectiontoselectthe“right" partnertocollaborateinjointtasks.
• Agovernancemodeltodefineasetofpoliciesandrules.
TrustanditsAntecedents• “x”expects“y”todotask(𝜏)and“y”willnotexploitvulnerabilitiesof“x”when“y”facedwiththeopportunitytodoso.Therefore,“y”:
• Hasthepotentialabilitytoperformagiventask(competence),• Adheres toasetofrules agreeduponandactsaccordinglytofulfillthecommitments(integrity),and
• Acts anddoesgood evenifunexpectedcontingenciesarise(benevolence).
kj
Competence
Integrity
Benovelence
Trustworthiness
Trustee
Trustor
Trust OutCome >= Expectation Risk Assessment
ContextA Set of
Principles
Kindship
Evidence* Current (S), Context
Current (S), Context Evidence*
Evidence
AdoptedfromMayeretal.(1995)``AnIntegrativeModelofOrganizationalTrust"
Organize,MaintainandEvaluateTrust
ComputationalTrustModel(SCTM)
• Identifythreedistinctivetrustworthinessfactors(Benevolence,IntegrityandCompetence)
• EvaluateTrustinadynamicway
• Gatherthedirectandindirectevidenceonatrustee
• UpdateTrustvaluebenevolence
Evaluation FunctionBen (x,y, si )
Trustworthiness Evaluation Function
TW (x,y, si )Trust
Tr ( x,y, si )
Ed(x, y, si ; Kbx )
Ec(x, y, si )
Ben (x,y, si )
TW (x,y, si )
competenceEvaluation Function
Com (nbry ,y, si )Com (nbry , y, si )
Kbx
Outcome of a taskTask typeReptReqtDestination’s IdOriginator’s
Id
integrityEvaluation Function
Int (nbry ,y, si )
Int (nbry , y, si )
Inordertodefinethesituationsthatleadtoanagreementbetweenatrustorandatrustee:• d1 =trustor,• d2=trustee,
• d3 =time,
• d4=location,• d5=task,
• d6=complexity,• d7=deadline,
• d8=Outcome
• Threedifferentoutcomeoftasks
ContextDefinition
val(𝑑&) = (1, 𝑖𝑓𝑑&= 𝐹𝑑0.5, 𝑖𝑓𝑑&= 𝐹𝑑𝑑0, 𝑖𝑓𝑑&= 𝑉
EvidenceGathering:Directevidence
• AtrustorlooksatitsKbtocollecttheevidenceonatrusteebasedonpastinteractions.
𝑣𝑎𝑙5 . ⟶ [0,1]𝐸𝑑(𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑠=; 𝑘𝑏A) = {𝑑&(x,y,𝑠=) ∈ 𝑘𝑏A}
𝑣𝑎𝑙5 𝐸𝑑(𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑠=; 𝑘𝑏A) = EFG∑ 𝑣𝑎𝑙 𝑑&(x,y,𝑠=)�5J(A,K,LM)∈N5(A,K,LM;OPG)
val(𝑑&) = (1, 𝑖𝑓𝑑&= 𝐹𝑑0.5, 𝑖𝑓𝑑&= 𝐹𝑑𝑑0, 𝑖𝑓𝑑&= 𝑉
,𝑁A = 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑒𝑛𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑒𝐾𝑏[𝑠
Z
WD
A
Y
X
C
B
M
N
Request the evidence
Ed (X,Y)
benevolenceEvaluation Function
Ben (x,y, si )
Trustworthiness Evaluation Function
TW (x,y, si )Trust
Tr ( x,y, si )
Ed(x, y, si ; Kbx )
Ec(x, y, si )
Ben (x,y, si )
TW (x,y, si )
competenceEvaluation Function
Com (nbry ,y, si )Com (nbry , y, si )
Kbx
Outcome of a taskTask typeReptReqtDestination’s IdOriginator’s
Id
integrityEvaluation Function
Int (nbry ,y, si )
Int (nbry , y, si )
EvidenceGathering:Indirectevidence
• Atrustorasksatrustee’sdirectneighborstosendhimtheirevidenceonagiventrustee.
𝑣𝑎𝑙\ . ⟶ [0,1]
Ec(𝑛𝑏𝑟K,y,𝑠=) ={Ed(u,y,𝑠=;𝑘𝑏b)|𝑢 ∈ 𝑛𝑏𝑟K}𝑣𝑎𝑙\ 𝐸𝑐(𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑠=) = E
Fefg∑ 𝑣𝑎𝑙5 𝐸𝑑(u,y,𝑠=;𝑘𝑏b)�N5(b,K,LM;OPG)∈N\(hPij,K,LM)
Z
WD
A
Y
X
C
B
M
N
Request the evidence
Ec (W,Y)
Ec (Z,Y)
Ec (A,Y)
Ec (M,Y)
𝑁hPi = 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑛𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑠𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑡𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑣𝑎𝑙\
SCTM
benevolenceEvaluation Function
Ben (x,y, si )
Trustworthiness Evaluation Function
TW (x,y, si )Trust
Tr ( x,y, si )
Ed(x, y, si ; Kbx )
Ec(x, y, si )
Ben (x,y, si )
TW (x,y, si )
competenceEvaluation Function
Com (nbry ,y, si )Com (nbry , y, si )
Kbx
Outcome of a taskTask typeReptReqtDestination’s IdOriginator’s
Id
integrityEvaluation Function
Int (nbry ,y, si )
Int (nbry , y, si )
Z
WD
A
Y
X
C
B
M
N
Request the evidence
Ed (X,Y)
Z
WD
A
Y
X
C
B
M
N
Request the evidence
Ec (W,Y)
Ec (Z,Y)
Ec (A,Y)
Ec (M,Y)
SCTM
benevolenceEvaluation Function
Ben (x,y, si )
Trustworthiness Evaluation Function
TW (x,y, si )Trust
Tr ( x,y, si )
Ed(x, y, si ; Kbx )
Ec(x, y, si )
Ben (x,y, si )
TW (x,y, si )
competenceEvaluation Function
Com (nbry ,y, si )Com (nbry , y, si )
Kbx
Outcome of a taskTask typeReptReqtDestination’s IdOriginator’s
Id
integrityEvaluation Function
Int (nbry ,y, si )
Int (nbry , y, si )
Z
WD
A
Y
X
C
B
M
N
Request the evidence
Ed (X,Y)
BenevolenceFunction
• Basedonthedirect interactionsbetween𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑥𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑦 inthesituation𝑠=.
𝐵𝑒𝑛 𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑠= = 𝑣𝑎𝑙5 𝐸𝑑(𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑠=, 𝑘𝑏A)
CompetenceFunction
• EvaluatebasedontheallavailableevidenceonTrustee(e.g.y,z)
𝐶𝑜𝑚 𝑛𝑏𝑟K, 𝑦, 𝑠= = 𝑣𝑎𝑙\ Ec(𝑛𝑏𝑟K[,y,𝑠=) , 𝑛𝑏𝑟K[ = 𝑛𝑏𝑟K\{𝑥}
Deljoo,Ameneh,etal."TheImpactofCompetenceandBenevolenceinaComputationalModelofTrust."IFIPInternationalConferenceonTrust Management.Springer,Cham,2018.
Z
WD
A
Y
X
C
B
M
N
Request the evidence
Ec (W,Y)
Ec (Z,Y)
Ec (A,Y)
Ec (M,Y)
IntegrityFunction
• Thegiventrustee’sintegrityiscomputedby:
𝐼𝑛𝑡 𝑛𝑏𝑟K, 𝑦, 𝑠= =∑ 𝑁p5�qPr∈hPij (𝐾𝑏b, 𝑦)
𝑁N\
where𝑁p5 𝐾𝑏b, 𝑦 = | 𝐸𝑑 𝑢, 𝑦, 𝑠=, 𝑘𝑏b |𝑢 ∈ 𝑛𝑏𝑟K&𝑣𝑎𝑙 𝑑&(𝑢, 𝑦, 𝑠=) = 𝐹𝑑|
EstimatingTrustbasedonCompetenceandBenevolencefunctions
𝑇𝑤(𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑠=) =13(𝐶𝑜𝑚(𝑛𝑏𝑟K, 𝑦, 𝑠=) + 𝐼𝑛𝑡(𝑛𝑏𝑟K, 𝑦, 𝑠=) + 𝐵𝑒𝑛 𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑠= )
𝑇𝑟 𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑠= = 𝑇𝑤(𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑠=)
RiskEstimation
RiskEstimation
InteractionRisk(𝑅= 𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑠= ) intheAllianceConsistsof:
• RelationalRisk 𝑅i 𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑠= :Theprobability andconsequence ofnothavingasuccessfulcooperation(Benevolentbehavior).
• PerformanceRisk(𝑅z 𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑠= ):Theprobability andconsequences thatallianceobjectives arenotrealized despitesatisfactorycooperationamongthepartner(thecompetenceofthegivenmember).
RiskEstimation
Interactionrisk
InteractionRiskisgivenby:
𝑅= 𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑠= = 𝑅i 𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑠= + 𝑅z 𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑠=
𝑅= 𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑠= = 𝑤E(1 − 𝐶𝑜𝑚 𝑥, 𝑦; 𝑠= ) +𝑤| 1 − 𝐵𝑒𝑛 𝑥, 𝑦; 𝑠=
𝑅= 𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑠= = 𝛼 1 − 𝐶𝑜𝑚 𝑛𝑏𝑟K, 𝑦, 𝑠= + 1 − α 1 − 𝐵𝑒𝑛 𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑠= , 0 ≤ 𝛼 ≤ 1
Perceived Interaction Risk( Ri ( x,y, Si ))
Benevolence Function
Risk Estimation
Competence Function
Relation Risk (Rr ( x,y, Si ) ) Performance Risk (Rp ( x,y, Si ))
W1W2
𝑤E =𝛼, 𝑤|= 1 − 𝛼T. Das, B.-S. Teng, Risk types and inter-frim alliance structures, Journal of management studies 33 (6) (1996) 827{843.
CaseStudy
Z
WD
A
Y
X
C
B
M
N
ACollaborativeNetwork
Notation
1Dimensions are: d1 = trustor, d2= trustee , d3 = time, d4= location, d5= task, d6=complexity, d7= deadline, d8= Outcome
1
val(𝑑&) = (1, 𝑖𝑓𝑑&= 𝐹𝑑0.5, 𝑖𝑓𝑑&= 𝐹𝑑𝑑0, 𝑖𝑓𝑑&= 𝑉
CalculatetheOutcome
benevolenceEvaluation Function
Ben (x,y, si )
Trustworthiness Evaluation Function
TW (x,y, si )Trust
Tr ( x,y, si )
Ed(x, y, si ; Kbx )
Ec(x, y, si )
Ben (x,y, si )
TW (x,y, si )
competenceEvaluation Function
Com (nbry ,y, si )
Com (nbry , y, si )
Kbx
Outcome of a taskTask typeReptReqtDestination’s IdOriginator’s
Id
vd8=OutcomevThreedifferentoutcomeoftasks
𝐹𝑑 𝐹𝑢𝑙𝑙𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑢𝑡𝑦𝐹𝑑𝑑 𝐹𝑢𝑙𝑙𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑢𝑡𝑦𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑦
𝑉 𝑉𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒
Simulationsettingsandtheirillustrations
Z
WD
A
Y
X
C
B
M
N
Scenario
Domain“N”wantstochooseidealdomainsforcollaborationinordertomitigateanddefendagainstacertainattack.
Task(𝜏):Mitigateanddefendagainstacertainattack.
Sub-tasks:• 𝜏LE:provideresourceswithinacertaintimewindow,• 𝜏L|:monitoracertaintraffic,• 𝜏L�:blockacertainlink,• 𝜏L�:implementacertaincountermeasurement.
Selectinga“right”partneralgorithm
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Com
pete
nce,
Ben
evol
ence
, Ri
s1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1s2
Domains
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1s3
Domains
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1s4
Com
pete
nce,
Ben
evol
ence
, Ri
T
TT
T
Competence
Benevolence
Ri
Competence
Benevolence
Ri
Z
ZM YAX X
XX A M Y
A
A
M
M
Y
Y
Z
Z
Result
EvaluationResult
Members0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
The
valu
e of
ben
evol
ence
SELCSPSCTMSOLUM
X Y M Z A XMembers
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.9
The
valu
e of
com
pete
nce
SELCSPSCTMSOLUM
YM AZ
Thevalueofbenevolenceforthreedifferentalgorithms Thevalueofcompetenceforthreedifferentalgorithms
Governanceframework
• WeusetheServiceProviderGroup(SPG)frameworktodefineasetofcommonrulesandPolicies
• AnormativeAgentBasedModel(N-BDI*)tomonitorthemembers’behavior• Eduroam,CyberthreatAlliance• DigitalDataMarketPlacehttps://klm-4tlas.herokuapp.com/
• Employtheblockchainandsmartcontracttoimplementtherules.• StabilityoftheDigitalDataMarketplace.
Policies &Commonrules (Governance
framework)
Conclusion
• Toevaluate thetrustworthiness ofatrusteethedirect andindirect evidenceonthegiventrusteeweretakenintoaccount.
• Thetrust valueiscomputedbythree trustfactors,namelycompetence,integrityandbenevolence.
• Benevolence iscomputedfromdirect evidencebetweenatrusteeandatrustor• Competenceandintegrity areassessedonthebaseofthereceivedfeedbackfromtheotheralliancemembers(atrustee'sdirectneighbors).
• Weareabletocollectavarietyofevidenceonatrusteebyintroducingeightdimensionsforeachcontext.
Conclusion
• TheinteractionriskestimatedthroughtheSCTM bycombiningbenevolence andcompetence.
• Theweightingfactors usedtodeterminedifferentweightstoselectthepartnersbasedonthetask.
• WeevaluatedtheSCTMframeworkwithSARNETEmulation developedbyRalph.• TheN-BDI*frameworkdefinedtomonitorthemember’sbehavior.
Thank you.
Ameneh [email protected]