Paper detail

The Bi-Objective Workflow Satisfiability Problem and Workflow Resiliency

A computerized workflow management system may enforce a security policy, specified in terms of authorized actions and constraints, thereby restricting which users can perform particular steps in a workflow. The existence of a security policy may mean it is impossible to find a valid plan (an assignment of steps to authorized users such that all constraints are satisfied). Work in the literature focuses on the workflow satisfiability problem, a \emph{decision} problem that outputs a valid plan if the instance is satisfiable (and a negative result otherwise). In this paper, we introduce the \textsc{Bi-Objective Workflow Satisfiability Problem} (\BOWSP), which enables us to solve \emph{optimization} problems related to workflows and security policies. In particular, we are able to compute a "least bad" plan when some components of the security policy may be violated. In general, \BOWSP is intractable from both the classical and parameterized complexity point of view. We prove there exists an fixed-parameter tractable (FPT) algorithm to compute a Pareto front for \BOWSP if we restrict our attention to user-independent constraints. We also present a second algorithm to compute a Pareto front which uses mixed integer programming (MIP). We compare the performance of both our algorithms on synthetic instances, and show that the FPT algorithm outperforms the MIP-based one by several orders of magnitude on most of the instances. Finally, we study the important question of workflow resiliency and prove new results establishing that known decision problems are fixed-parameter tractable when restricted to user-independent constraints. We then propose a new way of modeling the availability of users and demonstrate that many questions related to resiliency in the context of this new model may be reduced to instances of \BOWSP.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.