This disclosure relates generally to data security. More specifically, this disclosure relates to a system and method for implementing mandatory access control on queries of a self-describing data system.
The technical challenges associated with implementing a search, or query functionality on data expressed in certain markup languages and stored in a database, in particular, a relational database, such as a .SQL server database include, without limitation, difficulty in formulating and executing recursive search queries as well as searching across a dynamic data model. Specifically, recursive searches of relational databases require iterative and repetitive reformulation of the search query. Further, certain markup languages do not support query functionality over across dynamic data models, as changes to the data model will block the execution of the search, typically resulting in an error message indicating that the database schema is different than an expected schema.
There may be different types of access controls to data elements in a data structure. For example, a role based access control policy may enforced where certain access rights are provided to certain users having certain roles. As described further herein, there may be limitations to using such a control policy.
This disclosure provides a system and method for implementing mandatory access control on queries in a self-describing data system.
In one embodiment, a method is disclosed. The method may include applying a mandatory access control (MAC) policy to an item type, and receiving, from a processing device, a request to access a first item in a data structure, wherein the first item including the item type. responsive to receiving the request. The method may include executing the MAC policy to instruct the processing device to traverse one or more relationships between the first item and one or more other items to identify a target item. determining whether a derived attribute of the target item is satisfied. Responsive to determining the derived attribute of the target item is satisfied, the method may include enabling access to the first item.
In one embodiment, a system may include a memory device storing instructions and a processing device communicatively coupled to the memory device. The processing device may execute the instructions to perform any operation, method, function, and/or procedure disclosed herein.
In one embodiment, a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium stores instructions that, when executed, cause a processing device to perform any operation, method, function, and/or procedure disclosed herein.
Other technical features may be readily apparent to one skilled in the art from the following figures, descriptions, and claims.
Before undertaking the DETAILED DESCRIPTION below, it may be advantageous to set forth definitions of certain words and phrases used throughout this patent document. The term “couple” and its derivatives refer to any direct or indirect communication between two or more elements, whether or not those elements are in physical contact with one another. The terms “transmit,” “receive,” and “communicate,” as well as derivatives thereof, encompass both direct and indirect communication. The terms “include” and “comprise,” as well as derivatives thereof, mean inclusion without limitation. The term “or” is inclusive, meaning and/or. The phrase “associated with,” as well as derivatives thereof, means to include, be included within, interconnect with, contain, be contained within, connect to or with, couple to or with, be communicable with, cooperate with, interleave, juxtapose, be proximate to, be bound to or with, have, have a property of, have a relationship to or with, or the like. The term “controller” means any device, system or part thereof that controls at least one operation. Such a controller may be implemented in hardware or a combination of hardware and software and/or firmware. The functionality associated with any particular controller may be centralized or distributed, whether locally or remotely. The phrase “at least one of,” when used with a list of items, means that different combinations of one or more of the listed items may be used, and only one item in the list may be needed. For example, “at least one of: A, B, and C” includes any of the following combinations: A, B, C, A and B, A and C, B and C, and A and B and C.
Moreover, various functions described below can be implemented or supported by one or more computer programs, each of which is formed from computer readable program code and embodied in a computer readable medium. The terms “application” and “program” refer to one or more computer programs, software components, sets of instructions, procedures, functions, objects, classes, instances, related data, or a portion thereof adapted for implementation in a suitable computer readable program code. The phrase “computer readable program code” includes any type of computer code, including source code, object code, and executable code. The phrase “computer readable medium” includes any type of medium capable of being accessed by a computer, such as read only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), a hard disk drive, a compact disc (CD), a digital video disc (DVD), or any other type of memory. A “non-transitory” computer readable medium excludes wired, wireless, optical, or other communication links that transport transitory electrical or other signals. A non-transitory computer readable medium includes media where data can be permanently stored and media where data can be stored and later overwritten, such as a rewritable optical disc or an erasable memory device.
Definitions for other certain words and phrases are provided throughout this patent document. Those of ordinary skill in the art should understand that in many if not most instances, such definitions apply to prior as well as future uses of such defined words and phrases.
For a more complete understanding of this disclosure and its advantages, reference is now made to the following description, taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, in which:
According to certain embodiments, the foundational element of a self-describing data system is an item, instances of which may be maintained in persistent storage in a relational database. According to certain embodiments, the configuration and properties of an item may be expressed in a markup language, such as extensible markup language (XML), or Aras Markup Language (AML), which, as described in greater detail herein, follows a repeating “/Item/Relationships/Item/Relationships” pattern to describe item configurations.
Further, in the non-limiting example of
According to various embodiments, the instance of the item defined by <item> tag 100 comprises three principal attributes, a type 105, an ID 110 and an action 115. It should be noted that the following three attributes are not the only attributes which can be applied to an item.
In the non-limiting example shown in
According to various embodiments, ID 110 comprises a unique identifier for the instance of an item created by <item> tag 100. In the non-limiting example of
In some embodiments, action 115 comprises a method to be applied to the instance of an item defined by <item> tag 100. In the non-limiting example of
Referring to the non-limiting example of
According to certain embodiments, the configuration 200 of an item may be expressed as a markup language document (for example, an AML document). In some embodiments, item 200's configuration may be expressed through an “/Item/Relationships/Item/Relationships” pattern in an AML document. Further, the document expressing the configuration 200 of the item may contain data 220 (which are themselves, items), structure or relationships 210 (which are hierarchical items) and logic, which, as shown in the example of
In the non-limiting example of
As shown in
In some embodiments, when the RelationshipType 212 is created, is_relationship 214 is also created. Is_relationship 214 comprises an item, and its id is the value of the relationship_id property of RelationshipType 212. As such, is_relationship 214 operates to provide an ItemType pairing to RelationshipType 212, and to define a RelationshipType rule and an ItemType for storing the source_relationship 216 and target_relationship 218 properties of the RelationshipType item 212.
According to certain embodiments, source_relationship 216 is a property of RelationshipType 212 which comprises a link pointing to a child item. Similarly, target_relationship 218 is a property of RelationshipType 212, which comprises a link to a child item.
As shown in the non-limiting example of
According to certain embodiments, a property 222 defines data for an item. Examples of properties may include, for example, a cost for an item, which could be expressed in AML or XML in the form: “<cost>232.13</cost>” indicating that a particular item has a cost value of “232.13” units.
According to certain embodiments, items of data for an item may be further specified with an attribute 224, which may be analogized as metadata for the item or property, and controlling logic and methods associated with the item. For example, an attribute may define a conditional, producing an AML or XML expression of the form “<cost condition=“between”>10.00 and 50.00</cost>” In this example, the property “cost” is further specified through the “between” attribute for which the values 10.00 and 50.00 are specified.
According to certain embodiments, the configuration 200 for an item may further include history data for the item, showing some or all of the previous configurations of the item.
The properties 310 of the item are set forth, and include an “item_number” value (which, according to certain embodiments, may function as a unique identifier of the instance of the item) and a “description” value, which, in this case is “Some Assy” (an abbreviation of “some assembly.”)
Container tag 315 specifies that the item has relationships, including a first relationship 320 with item indicating an “add” method with an item of the type “Part BOM.” Item configuration 300 further specifies a “related_id” (e.g., child relationship between the “Part BOM” item and a child “part” item 325. Thus, by applying the “/Item/Relationships/Item/Relationships” pattern, a part-to-part BOM relationship may be described.
According to certain embodiments, database server 405 is a server hosting data and implementing one or more database applications supporting query functionalities. Database server 405 is generally platform-agnostic and may host data in a number of known database formats, including a relational database format (for example, by running an instance of .SQL server) or as a columnar database format. In the non-limiting example of
According to certain embodiments, database server 405 is configured to receive queries expressed as statements in a domain-specific language (for example, structured query language), and return results from the database hosted on database server 405.
According to certain embodiments, backend 410 comprises a server or other computer configured to implement a query engine 415 configured to receive, from front end 420 query requests expressed in the syntax of a self-describing data system (for example, AML). As noted elsewhere, embodiments according to this disclosure are platform-agnostic and may be practiced across a wide range of hardware configurations and development environments. In some embodiments, query engine 415 may be implemented as an ASP.NET web service.
In the non-limiting example of
According to the non-limiting example of
In some embodiments, a query definition is an item, and creating an instance of a query definition at operation 505 comprises beginning a markup language document (for example, an AML document) defining the configuration of the query definition. Further, a query definition may define the set of data (otherwise known as a domain) which a user is interested in seeing, and which can be collected across one or more different items types and/or relationships using user specified rules for filtering. Because a query definition defines the domain of a query, it may also be utilized to implement domain-based access controls to data items within the data structure.
According to certain embodiments, the AML document defining the configuration of the query begins with an instance of an <item> tag, an example of which is provided below:
<Item action=“qry_Execute QueryDefinition” type=“qry_QueryDefinition”>
As shown above, according to some embodiments, an <item> tag creating an instance of a query definition specifies, at a minimum, a type of the instance of the query, which in this case, is a query definition (specified as “qry_QueryDefinition”), and a method, or action associated with the item, which in this case, is an instruction to execute a query, (specified as “qry_Execute Query Definition”). In some embodiments, the <item> tag creating the instance of the query definition item may further comprise a unique ID for the item, which in certain embodiments, may be advantageous if queries or query histories are stored in the data structure.
As shown in the non-limiting example of
According to certain embodiments, method 500 includes operation 515, wherein the query definition is provided to a query engine. According to some embodiments, operations 505 and/or 510 may variously be performed at a front end client (for example, front end 420 shown in
In some embodiments, method 500 also includes operation 520, wherein the query engine determines query execution instructions based on the received query definition. In the non-limiting example of
Additionally, in the non-limiting example of
According to various embodiments, at operation 525, the query engine obtains the results of a query executed based on the query execution instructions. According to certain embodiments, the results obtained at operation 525 may comprise generally unformatted data, and the query engine may assemble a response containing the results of the query.
In some embodiments, at operation 530, the query engine outputs the assembled query results. According to certain embodiments, operation 530 comprises returning the query response back to a user or application from which the request for a query was received (for example, front end 420 in
As shown in the non-limiting example of
According to certain embodiments, data model 600 is a self-describing data model which follows an “/Item/Relationship/Item/Relationship” description structure. Accordingly, in data model 600, a federated set of relationship properties 610 through 640 follow query definition 605. These relationships include query item 610. According to certain embodiments, query item 610 may appear as one or more <item> tags within a <relationship> container, such as shown in the example given in
As shown in the non-limiting example of
According to certain embodiments, the relationships specified by data model 600 comprise query item selection properties 615, which define or identify which properties from query item 610 to include in the query response. An overview of the properties in one example of query item selection properties 615 is set forth in Table 2, below:
In some embodiments, the relationships specified by data model comprise query item sort properties 620, which define which properties from the associated query item are to be used for sorting data returned by the query, and how the sort is to be performed. An overview of properties of query item sort properties 620 is set forth in Table 3, below:
According to various embodiments, the relationships specified by data model 600 further comprise query item available properties 630. In the non-limiting example of
In the non-limiting example of
According to certain embodiments, the relationships specified within query definition data model 600 comprise query condition 640. Query condition 640 is an instance of an item which defines the filter conditions for the data request. According to certain embodiments, the scope of query condition 640 is the entity on which it is referenced, and a query condition can be optionally associated with a query item and query reference items. In the case where query condition 640 is referenced by a query item (for example, query item 610), then query condition filters the items defined by the query item. If, however, the query condition is referenced by a query reference (for example, query reference 635), it operates to filter the items defined by a query item referenced as the child query item for the query reference. An overview of properties of query condition 640 is set forth in Table 7 below:
As shown in the non-limiting example of
Referring to the non-limiting example of
Configuration document 700 further includes query items 715a, 715b and 715c which, set forth properties to be part of the query response, and the properties to be used in joins and filtering. For example, query item 715a specifies an item, having the name “part” and the attribute “keyed_name,” with the value “4F1AC04A2B484F3ABA4E20DB63808A88” as a filter for items to be returned by the query.
In the non-limiting example of
Additionally, in this illustrative example, query document 700 further comprises an instance 725 of a query item sort property. In the non-limiting example of
As shown in the non-limiting example of
In the non-limiting example of
Data model 800 may, according to various embodiments, include a variety of types of items 810 specifying relationships within the query definition. These items may comprise, for example, items 610-640 in
Additionally, items 815 belonging to the query parameter item type may also be utilized to track or control aspects of the execution of a query. For example, according to certain embodiments, a user designed parameter “@ExecutionPath” is a dynamic parameter which may be calculated while processing a query definition to determine the progress of a query. Additionally, according to certain embodiments, items 815 belonging to the query parameter item type may also be used to define a query execution path, reflecting a route from a parent query item to a child query item in a query definition. Still further, items 815 belonging to the query parameter item type may be used to control the depth (i.e., how many levels are traversed) of recursion of a recursive query. According to some embodiments, a query engine (for example, query engine 415 in
According to various embodiments, “@ExecutionPath” is a parameter calculated by a query execution engine (which according to certain embodiments, may be embodied as part of a query engine, such as, for example, query engine 415 in
In some embodiments, the query parameter “@Levels” is a parameter specifying the number of levels to “drill down” in a recursive search. Thus, in the example of
After an execution engine implements execution instructions based on the query definition, query engines according to certain embodiments of this disclosure obtain the results of the executed query and output the query results.
As shown in the non-limiting example of
According to certain embodiments, a query engine may output query results in a structured format, such as the structured format of the query definition (for example, as shown in
As shown by
According to certain embodiments or under certain conditions (for example, when performing very, very large queries, such as queries of a bill of materials for a helicopter, which when expressed as items in a self-describing data structure, may comprise a data structure with 30,000,000 item nodes) the performance of the query engine may be improved by outputting the query results in a “flat” or unstructured format. In contrast to certain structured output formats according to embodiments of this disclosure, wherein the query results are outputted in a manner that reflects and allows reconstruction of, the hierarchy and relationships within the query structure and query execution path, a “flat” output may adhere to a simplified structure, wherein only “key properties” are displayed. In this way, the file size of the query result may be made more manageable.
While certain embodiments according to this disclosure primarily provide a search functionality for recursive searches of a self-describing data system by defining the domain of a query, determining execution instructions from the query definition, and then obtaining and outputting query results, the present disclosure is not so limited. By defining a domain in a data structure, certain embodiments of this disclosure leverage the ability to perform defined queries across self-describing data structures to dynamically define and update domains subject to defined access policies.
As discussed herein, in certain embodiments according to this disclosure, a query definition can specify the domain of a query, or the set of data items within a data structure on an execution path of a query (or plurality of queries) executed according to the query definition. Additionally, as discussed elsewhere in this disclosure, each item along the execution path may have properties and attributes, which are related to, or indicative of an item's sensitivity.
For example, in an enterprise which stores all of its data in a self-describing description according to this disclosure, there may be compelling organizational or security reasons to control distribution of financial data. Further, sensitive financial data may be stored as items of one or more item types (for example, an item type permitting values for “cost” or “profit.” Similarly, users submitting queries for enterprise data may also have access rights. According to certain embodiments, these access rights may be specified via a user profile or a permissions set, which itself may be an item in a self-describing data system. Because a query definition may define the universe of items covered by a search, and the items within the search belong to specified item types, knowledge of a query domain can be leveraged to implement domain based access controls. That is, by knowing what types of items are covered by a query, and by setting permissions allowing certain users to only view certain item types, domain based access controls on items within the self-describing data structure may be implemented.
In some embodiments, domain based access control may refer to a form of relationship based access control where access rights for an item are determined based on the item relationships with other items in the self-describing data system. A domain may refer to a set of items that are related in a certain way to a special item referred to as a domain root. Examples of items (ItemTypes) that function as domain roots may include projects, programs, and/or products. The items that are included in a domain are determined based on their relationship with the domain root item for that domain. The relationships that define a domain are defined as a composition of “primary relationships” and “derived relationships”, as explained further below. Executing the query defined by the query definition, the items of a domain may be retrieved when a domain root is provided as a context item.
In some embodiments, a mapping of the items membership in one or more sub domains of one or more domains may be maintained after the query of the query definition is executed. The mapping may be maintained in memory for quick access such that the query defined by the query definition is not re-executed. Incremental changes to data of items may be applied to the mapping in memory by adjusting the derived relationships of the items to the domain root when the data is modified.
In general, and as described further herein, a request may be received to query a requested item of data. A determination is made of what one or more domains to which the requested item belongs. For each of the one or more domains, a role of the user making the request is determined for the respective one or more domains. The subdomains to which the requested item belongs may also be determined. The subdomains may include policies for accessing the items and the policies may specify that different roles for the users have different access rights to items based on the state of the domain root with which the requested item is associated and/or a state of the subdomain item. If an output is generated that indicates the role of the user is to be granted access to the requested item in any of the subdomains of any of the domains, then the user is granted access to the requested item. In other words, the access rights that are output for the requested item in every subdomain and/or domain are combined to determine whether to provide access to the requested item.
As depicted in
As depicted in
Part “Part5” is also associated with a related part “Part2” via another part BOM. Related part “Part2” is associated with a related part “Part3” via a part BOM and is associated with related part “Part4” via another part BOM.
Part “Part5” is also associated with a related part “Part6” via another part BOM. Related part “Part6” is associated with related part “Part3” via a part BOM and is associated with related part “Part4” via another part BOM.
Each domain has an associated domain team. The domain team may list the users that are designated and/or authorized to work in the domain and assign to them a certain domain role. The domain role determines what kind of access rights is allowed for items in each domain subdomain for users in the role. As depicted, the domain roles may include a project manager, part designer, and change analyst. The domain users “User 1” is assigned the project manager role, “User 2” is assigned the part designer role, and “User 3” is assigned the change analyst role. The users may be authenticated individuals (e.g., enterprise employees who have logged into a system, such as ARAS INNOVATOR, for accessing items within a set of items). In some embodiments, the users may be applications or processes executing on a trusted computing platform, which access items within set of items programmatically. For example, an application or process for preserving documents subject to a litigation hold may programmatically access items by reading and downloading them to make them available for production in response to a court order.
The different roles may be associated with different access rights, such as get, update, delete, etc. In some embodiments, when a user submits a request for an item, every domain to which the item belongs is determined and the user roles in each of those domains is determined to make a decision of whether to provide the requested access to the user. For example, the user may have a project manager role for one domain, which has certain access rights to items in that domain based on a subdomain access control policy, and the user may have a part designer role for another domain, which has different access rights to items in that domain based on another subdomain access control policy.
According to embodiments, method 2400 includes operation 2405, wherein an apparatus within a network (for example, front end 420, back end 410, query engine 415, or a process operating on database server 405 in
At operation 2410, the apparatus determines one or more domains associated with the requested item. The one or more domains including a set of items of data in the self-describing data structure on an execution path of a query executed according to the query definition. For example, in the example depicted in the updated membership graphic form of the domains, subdomains, and items in
Returning to
In some embodiments, the apparatus may combine the output generated for each of the one or more domains to determine whether to grant access to the user to the requested item in the one or more subdomains located in the respective domain. Access may be granted to the requested item if the output generated for any of the one or more domains indicates that access to the requested item is granted for the role of the user in any of the one or more subdomains after combining the outputs.
For example, in some embodiments, the apparatus may determine that the user does not have access to the requested item in one domain based on the policy for a subdomain of that domain and the role (“part designer”) of the user in that domain. However, the apparatus may determine that the user has access to the requested item in another domain based on the policy for another subdomain of the other domain and the role (“project manager”) of the user in the other domain. The apparatus may generate the output to indicate that access to the user to the requested item is granted in the first domain based on determining that the user has access to the requested item in the other domain.
Upon executing the query in the query definition, the apparatus may maintain, in a database on a server, for example, a mapping of the one or more domains each including the one or more subdomains and the set of items in the one or more subdomains. Over time a user and/or a process may modify, add, and/or delete data for items in subdomains, which can cause membership of items in domains to alter, as shown in the examples in
In some embodiments, generating the output corresponding to whether access to the requested item is granted based on the policy for each of the one or more subdomains associated with the requested item and the role of the user for the domain further includes determining a state of the requested item, determining a state of a root item of the respective domain, and identifying the output in a rule data structure based on the state of the requested item, the state of the root item, and/or the role of the user. The rule data structure may be a lookup table. The output may include different access rights that are granted for different roles of the user in a domain based on the state of the requested item, the state of the root item, or some combination thereof. The access rights may include get, update, delete, add, and so forth.
When the “Subdomain Item state” is in a “Preliminary” state, the apparatus may refer to “Project Part Preliminary State Permission” table 2610. As depicted, different roles in the domain are provided different access rights when the state of the subdomain item is “Preliminary”. For example, when a project part is in “Preliminary” state, a part designer role can be provided access rights to get, update, and delete the item. When the project part is in the “Released” state, a project manager may be allowed access rights to just get the item.
When the “Subdomain Item state” is in a “Released” state, the apparatus may refer to “Project Part Released State Permission” table 2620. As depicted, different roles in the domain are provided different access rights when the state of the subdomain item is “Released”. For example, when a project part is in “Released” state, a part designer role can be provided access rights to just get the item. When the project part is in the “Released” state, a project manager may also be allowed access rights to just get the item. A project manager may not be allowed to update or delete a project part item in any state.
Referring to the non-limiting example of
In some embodiments, implementation 2700 further includes one or more sets of project permissions 2710. In this example, the one or more sets of project permissions 2710 include a DAC domain definition. In some embodiments, where the domain access control is performed on items belonging to a self-describing data structure, the DAC domain definition is based on a query definition specifying the relationships of items (also referred to herein as “access control items”) within the domain to a root item.
Further, set of project permissions 2710 may further include an index of subdomains of a root domain defined by a DAC domain definition. Additionally, as described above, set of project permissions 2710 may include a DAC policy, which provides a mapping of access rights to entities (e.g., users, systems, processes) based on their assigned domain roles. Further, one or more sets of policy combining rules may be used to specify how access rights given by different domains are combined for a final output of access rights to requested items. By way of simple example, a policy combining rule may be “grant requested access if the access is granted at least by one policy covering the request.” Other examples of policy combining rules are possible, such as if a request falls under a policy associated with a first domain, ignore access granted by policies associated with other domains to which the requested item belongs.
Set of permissions 2710 may also include a mapping of entities having access permissions (also referred to herein as “DAC Users”) to access one or more access control items, as well as the role(s) of each DAC User.
In the depicted example, “Project 1” 2720 is a root object, or root item, to which items in a DAC domain (shown as domain 2755 in
As noted above, a DAC domain definition is based on a query definition for a recursive query of a self-defining data structure. In tis example, a first recursion of a query according to the DAC domain definition establishes “Part 1” 2730 as belonging to the domain 2755 of items logically associated with the root item “Project 1”. Additionally, as shown in
In the non-limiting example of
In the non-limiting examples of
Referring now to
According to some embodiments, the determination of access rights for items belonging to multiple DAC domains or subdomains includes an identification of the domain and subdomain(s) to which a requested item belongs, and the application of one or more policy combining rules to determine the precedence of the domain-based access control policies of the domains and subdomains claiming the requested item.
Instead of, or in addition to, utilizing policy combining rules to navigate the determination of the appropriate access policy for items belonging to multiple subdomains, certain embodiments according to this disclosure implement derived relationships.
As used in this disclosure, the term derived relationship refers to a relationship calculated or “derive” from the application of an operation to sets of items obtained through one or more basic relationships. According to some embodiments, the applied operation may be a unary operation, such as inversion, restriction, or transitive closure. According to some embodiments, the operation may be one which takes multiple operands, such as a composition, union, or intersection.
In
As shown in
Similarly, in
In implementations where calculation of a basic relationship is computationally expensive, the use of derived relationships to dynamically determine access control domains can lighten the computation load associated with determining an entity has access permissions to a requested item. This is because the domain defined by the DAC definition need not be recalculated each time access is requested. Instead, identifying the relevant domain for access control of the item comprises performing a calculation to determine the subdomain defined by a derived relationship, which depending on the complexity of the calculation, can be significantly simpler than executing a query to determine a domain associated with a DAC definition. Thus, the use of derived relationships can enhance the ability of an access control platform to dynamically update the relevant subdomain for implementing access controls over an item. The membership of items in the domains may be dynamically modified and maintained as a mapping in a database.
According to embodiments, method 2900 includes operation 2902, wherein a mandatory access control (MAC) policy is applied to an item type. A MAC policy may refer to an attribute based access control policy. As described herein, role based access control may refer to a mode of assigning access rights based on the roles (e.g., managers, designers, developers, administrators, etc.) of individual users within an enterprise. In certain instances, role based access control policies may be inadequately undesirable to use due to difficult circumstances. For example, a confidential document may be assigned a security classification level and a user may be a security clearance level; however, one reason role based access control policies may be inadequate in such a scenario is that security clearance level is a characteristic of the user and not the user role within the enterprise. In another example, role based access control policies may be inadequate when compartmentalizing work into programs. An enterprise may segment its business by programs and each item in a self-describing data model may belong to one or more programs. Each user in the enterprise may be authorized for work on one or more programs. The role based access control policy may specify a user can have access to an item, but MAC policy will dictate that the user in fact gets the access only if there is a program X such that: a) the item belongs to the program X, and b) the user is authorized to work for the program X. The role based access control policy may be undesirable because compartmentalization does not depend on the user role within the enterprise.
Thus, in some embodiments, a MAC policy may be used in conjunction with role based access control policies and/or a DAC policy. Attribute based access control policies is a mode of assigning access rights based on attributes of the user, the resource (e.g., item) to be accessed, and/or current environmental conditions. In some embodiments, the access rights that a user be enabled for an item may include: “Show Permission Warning”, “Discover”, “Update”, “Delete”, and the like. In some embodiments, various security attributes may be modeled using a query definition defined using the front end 420 with the query engine 415 executing on the backend 410. In some embodiments the modeled security attributes in the query definitions may be stored at the backend 410 and/or at the database server 405.
The security attributes may be assigned scalar values, identifiers, an alphanumeric character, a percentage, a ratio, or the like. The security attributes may include item security attributes, which are properties of an item, and may include user security attributes, which are properties of the user. A MAC policy may be defined as a set of MAC rules determining access rights of users in respect to items of particular item types. A MAC rule may be defined as a rule of a MAC policy that determines if a given access right is granted to a user. A MAC condition may be defined as a condition used in formulating a MAC rule. An example MAC policy may be named “UserHasSufficientSecurityLevel” and may include the following MAC rule: UserHasSufficientSecurityLevel=user.security_clearance >=item.security_classification. The MAC policy indicates that the user has sufficient security level based on the MAC condition used in formulating the MAC rule of the user.security_clearance has to be at least greater than or equal to the item.security_classification.
A MAC policy may be applied to items of an item type listed in an “Applied To” list. For example, if item type “part” is included in the MAC policy “Applied To” list, then the MAC policy may be applied to any item having item type “part”. It should be noted that any suitable number of item types may be specified in the “Applied To” list, thereby enabling a single MAC policy to apply to one or more item types. In some embodiments, a MAC policy may be applied to computer-aided design documents and/or other types of documents. In some embodiments, a MAC policy is not enforced if a user is a member of an identity listed in a MAC policy “Exempt Identities” list. Thus, the MAC policy may be configured to be enforced in some instances and not enforced in other instances when desired.
In some embodiments, a MAC condition may use one or more built-in methods. For example, one MAC condition may specify “CurrentUser.IsMemberOf(<Identity Name>) returns true when the current user is a member of a (non-system) Identity <Identity Name> and return false otherwise. In some embodiments, a MAC condition may contain environment security attributes that characterize a context in which the access request was made. For example, an environment attribute “WorkingsHours” may be true when the request for an item is made during the working hours, and return false otherwise. An example condition may be represented as follows: “SampleCondition=CurrentUser.IsMemberOf(Management) OR $WorkingHours=1”. In this example condition “SampleCondition”, true may be returned when the current user is a member of a particular identity (e.g., management) or when the request was made during working hours. Accordingly, one or more MAC conditions may be included in a MAC rule to enable any suitable configuration of enabling user access rights to an item.
At operation 2904, an apparatus within a network (for example, front end 420, back end 410, query engine 415, or a process operating on database server 405 in
At operation 2906, responsive to receiving the request, the apparatus may execute the MAC policy to instruct the processing device to traverse one or more relationships between the first item and one or more other items to identify a target item. In some embodiments, the target item may be a parent item of the first item. In some embodiments, the target item may be a child item of the first item.
At operation 2908, the apparatus may determine whether a derived attribute of the target item is satisfied. The apparatus may use the MAC policy to determine a path to the target item by executing the query definition associated with the MAC policy. The apparatus may enforce the MAC policy that includes one or more MAC rules having one or more MAC conditions that specify when the derived attribute of the target item is satisfied. That is, the MAC policy may include a MAC condition that indicates to enable access to the first item when the derived attribute is satisfied. In some embodiments, the derived attribute may be specified in the MAC rule of the MAC policy in a query definition specifying the first item or item type of the first item to be accessed. The query definition may include a logical representation to determine one or more values (e.g., scalar) of the derived attribute. In some embodiments, the attribute may be multivalued. In some embodiments, the apparatus may define the derived attribute for a set of item types, and the derived attribute may include a uniform data type for each item type in the set of item types.
At operation 2910, responsive to determining the derived attribute of the target item is satisfied, the apparatus may enable access to the first item. In some embodiments, responsive to determining the derived attribute of the target item is not satisfied, the apparatus may deny access to the first item.
According to embodiments, method 3000 includes operation 3002, where an apparatus implements a role based access control policy for the first item as described with reference to method 2900. The role based access control policy may specify that a user that is assigned a certain role may have certain access rights to the item. For example, a user that is assigned a “designer” role may have read-write access rights to a certain item, whereas a user that is assigned a “reviewer” role may have read-only access rights to the certain item. In some embodiments, one or more MAC policies, one or more DAC policies, and/or one or more role based access control policies may be applied to an item.
At operation 3004, the apparatus may determine a role of the entity (e.g., user) that made the request. The role may be a manager, developer, designer, administrator, or the like. The role may be associated with certain access rights in the self-describing data structure.
At operation 4006, based on the role of the entity (e.g., user) and the derived attribute, the apparatus may determine whether to enable access to the first item. In some embodiments, when access to an item is controlled by more than one type of policy (e.g., MAC policy, role based access control policy, and/or DAC policy), a policy combining rule may be applied. For example, a policy combining rule may specify that overrides are enabled if any of the policies give access to the item (e.g., “Rule PermitOverrides(Policy1, Policy2)—give access to an item if any of the policies (Policy1 or Policy2) give access to the item). In some embodiments, overrides may be denied by a policy combining rule, such as if the user is enabled access rights to an item based on a role based access control policy and all the MAC policies applicable to the item type of the item. In that sense, a MAC policy may filter out some items for which a user would have access to if not for the MAC policy. In on example, a creator of an item may have access to the item created, but if later the item is classified and the creator does not have needed security clearance level to access the item, the creator may not be granted access to the item, even if the item permission provides for such access.
In some embodiments, access to the first item for the user may be enabled if the role of the user is a certain level or if the derived attribute is satisfied. In some embodiments, access to the first item for the user may be enabled if the role is a certain level and if the derived attribute is satisfied.
In some embodiments, MAC policy life cycle state promotions may be implemented as “Actions” within a query definition. The preliminary state may be promoted to the active state, the inactive state may be promoted to the active state or the archived state, and/or the active state may be promoted to the inactive state or the archived state. Upon activation, a MAC policy's rules may be imbedded into secured functions.
In some embodiments, a derived security attribute or derived attribute may refer to an attribute whose value is retrieved not from a requested item/user itself, but from other items that are in one or more relationships with the item/user being requested. The relationship may be defined for the derived attribute using a query definition and executed by the query engine 415. The derived attribute may have multiple values and may be referred to as a derived multivalued attribute herein. The same derived multivalued attribute may be defined and applied to one or more different item types (e.g., using query definitions for each item type). For example, “belong_to_programs” security attribute may be defined and applied to item types “part”, “document”, and “CAD”. For each of the item types, the attribute may have the same “data type” (e.g., a set of program identifiers (IDs)) and the same MAC rules/MAC conditions. The query definition including the attribute definition may provide an algorithm or method for determining or calculating or deriving the value(s) of the attribute. The attribute definition may be converted into a database programing language (e.g., SQL) and inserted into a secured function for item types associated with the requested item.
The following paragraph includes examples of built-in methods that the apparatus may use to work with derived multivalued attributes. For example, Collection.Overlaps(<multivalued attribute1>, <multivalued attribute2>) may return true if there is a Value_X such that: Value_X belongs to <multivalued attribute1> elementary value set and Value_X belongs to <multivalued attribute2> elementary value set. For example, Collection.Contains(<multivalued attribute>, <single-value attribute>) returns true if <single-value attribute> value belongs to <multivalued attribute> elementary value set. For example, Collection.IsEmpty(<multivalued attribute>) returns true if <multivalued attribute> does not contain any elementary values, and returns false otherwise.
In some embodiments, multivalued attributes for a user and/or an item include a set or collection of scalar values. An item multivalued attribute “belong_to_programs” may refer to a set of programs to which the item belongs. Another item multivalued attribute “authorized_for_porgrams” may refer to a set of programs for which the user is authorized to work. A derived relationship for obtaining a value set of a multivalued attribute for an item type may be specified in the derived attribute definition in the query definition.
None of the description in this application should be read as implying that any particular element, step, or function is an essential element that must be included in the claim scope. The scope of patented subject matter is defined only by the claims. Moreover, none of the claims is intended to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) unless the exact words “means for” are followed by a participle.
This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/168,160, filed Mar. 30, 2021, titled “System and Method for Implementing Mandatory Access Control on Queries of a Self-Describing Data System”, and this application is a continuation-in-part of patent application Ser. No. 16/387,205, filed Apr. 17, 2019, titled “Query Engine for Recursive Searches in a Self-Describing Data System”, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/663,777 filed Apr. 27, 2018, titled “Query Engine for Recursive Searches in a Self-Describing Data System”, which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety for all purposes.
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
63168160 | Mar 2021 | US | |
62663777 | Apr 2018 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 16387205 | Apr 2019 | US |
Child | 17675513 | US |