Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Michael J. Petkac

dblp:67/3324 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2000
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Security and privacy · 3 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Network and information security
1 paper
Systems and software security · 33% Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis · 33% Authentication and access control · 33%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Operating systems · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Authentication and access control › access control models
domain and type enforcement
0.011996
Confining Root Programs with Domain and Type Enforcement · USENIX Security Symposium 1996
Cryptographic primitives and cryptanalysis
message authentication codes
0.011996
Confining Root Programs with Domain and Type Enforcement · USENIX Security Symposium 1996
Systems and software security
operating system security
0.011996
Confining Root Programs with Domain and Type Enforcement · USENIX Security Symposium 1996
Operating systems › system security › operating system security
access control
0.011996
Confining Root Programs with Domain and Type Enforcement · USENIX Security Symposium 1996

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

domain and type enforcement · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2000 Security Agility in Response to Intrusion Detection
abstract
Cooperative frameworks for intrusion detection and response exemplify a key area of today's computer research: automating defenses against malicious attacks that increasingly are taking place at grander speeds and scales to enhance the survivability of distributed systems and maintain mission critical functionality. At the individual host-level, intrusion response often includes security policy reconfiguration to reduce the risk of further penetrations. However, runtime policy changes may cause traditional software components, designed without (dynamic) security in mind, to fail in varying degrees, including termination of critical processes. This paper presents security agility, a strategy to provide software components with the security awareness and adaptability to address runtime security policy changes, describes how security agility is packaged in a prototype toolkit and illustrates how the toolkit can be integrated with intrusion detection and response frameworks to help automate flexible host-based response to intrusions.
Michael J. Petkac, Lee Badger
ACSAC1
1997 Domain and Type Enforcement Firewalls
abstract
Internet connected organizations often employ an Internet firewall to mitigate risks of system penetration, data theft, data destruction, and other security breaches. Conventional Internet firewalls, however, impose an overly simple inside vs outside model of security that is incompatible with many business practices that require extending limited trust to external entities. The paper reports on our experience with an enhanced security firewall based on Domain and Type Enforcement (DTE), a strong but flexible form of access control. A DTE firewall provides several benefits. First, it runs application level proxies in restrictive domains, thereby increasing security, and runs network services such as HTTP and FTP under DTE controls, thereby reducing risks that network based attacks will compromise local resources. Second, a DTE firewall coordinates role based security policies that span networks by passing DTE security attributes between DTE clients and servers. These attributes allow security policies at the endpoints to be coordinated; such coordination adds defense in depth to the traditional firewall security perimeter: this permits safe exportation of normally risky services such as NFS. Finally, a DTE firewall interoperates with "non DTE" systems and associates DTE security attributes with these systems so their interaction with DTE clients or servers can be controlled. We describe the design of a prototype DTE firewall system and informally evaluate its security, compatibility, functionality, and performance.
Karen A. Oostendorp, Lee Badger, C. D. Vance, W. G. Morrison, Michael J. Petkac, David L. Sherman, Daniel F. Sterne
ACSAC5
1996 Confining Root Programs with Domain and Type Enforcement
Kenneth M. Walker, Daniel F. Sterne, Lee Badger, Michael J. Petkac, David L. Sherman, Karen A. Oostendorp
USENIX Security Symposium4