Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 66 references

Secure Cloud Assisted Smart Cars Using Dynamic Groups and Attribute Based Access Control

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes CV-ABACG, a formal attribute-based access control model with dynamic GPS-derived groups for connected cars, and demonstrates it on a cloud IoT platform with simulated vehicles and performance metrics.

desk verdict A legitimate extension of the authors' earlier ABAC-for-cars work with a genuine AWS prototype, but the 'dynamic groups' are implemented rather than formally modeled, and the evaluation is too thin to support the stronger claims. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08112 v1 pith:PN56VTVP submitted 2019-08-21 cs.CR

Maanak Gupta , James Benson , Farhan Patwa , Ravi Sandhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords AccesscontrolAttribute-basedConnectedvehiclesDynamicgroupsSmartcarsVehicularIoTAuthorizationUserprivacypreferences
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to establish that access control for connected cars can be formalized as an attribute-based model with dynamic groups, called CV-ABACG, where authorization decisions use live attributes such as GPS coordinates, speed, and user preferences. It argues that dynamic groups give a smart-city administrator a scalable way to scope alerts and notifications to the vehicles that should receive them, while a second layer of user privacy policies lets individual drivers reject unwanted services. The stakes are concrete: connected cars expose a large attack surface, and notifications that reach irrelevant vehicles are both a safety distraction and a privacy problem. A proof-of-concept implementation on a cloud IoT platform with 50 simulated vehicles demonstrates deer-threat alerts, car-pooling requests, attribute inheritance through a group hierarchy, and policy evaluation times in the range of 0.08 to 0.52 milliseconds for 10 to 50 requests.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the group hierarchy together with effective-attribute derivation. Groups (G) with a partial order GH allow attributes and alerts to inherit from parent to child, and the functions effGatt, effCOatt, and effOatt compute the effective attribute set of each group, clustered object, and object by unioning or overwriting inherited values. Dynamic membership is realized by directG, which maps each clustered object to one group at each hierarchy level from current attributes such as GPS coordinates. These derived attributes feed authorization functions Authop(s, ob), propositional-logic policies over effective attributes, so group membership, user preferences, and system policy all reduce to the same attribute-evaluation machinery.

What would settle it

Spoof one vehicle's reported location so that it enters a different location group while its true position remains fixed, then generate a group-scoped alert; if the car receives or is denied the alert based on the false group, the trust assumption has been violated and the model's decisions no longer track reality.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that authorization in a connected-vehicle ecosystem can be expressed as a pure attribute-based model with dynamic groups. In CV-ABACG, sources (users, applications, sensors, cars) initiate activities; clustered objects (cars, traffic lights) contain individual objects (sensors, ECUs, applications); and groups are logical collections of clustered objects arranged in a partial-order hierarchy. A moving car is assigned to exactly one group at each hierarchy level through a directG function based on reported attributes, and effective attributes are derived by inheriting group attributes down the hierarchy: set-valued attributes are unioned, while atomic attributes take the most recently updated non-null value from a parent group. An activity is allowed only if every authorization policy Authop for its operations evaluates to true, combining system-wide policies with user privacy preferences. The cloud prototype shows that this design scopes deer-threat alerts and car-pooling requests to relevant subgroups and enforces privacy filters locally at the vehicle, while deliberately not collecting persistent vehicle location data in the central cloud.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes the attributes reported by cars and sensors are truthful, for example that a car's GPS coordinates are its actual coordinates, and if that fails, dynamic group assignment and all downstream authorization decisions can be wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Location-group membership reduces broadcast alerts to the set of vehicles for which an alert is relevant, so a deer-threat warning reaches cars near the sensor rather than every car in the city.
  • A second authorization layer at the vehicle, using local policy evaluation, lets a driver decline car-pooling requests or marketing notifications even when the central policy has already selected the car's group.
  • Administrators can change an attribute once on a parent group, such as setting Deer_Threat to ON, and have it propagate to every child group and member vehicle through inheritance.
  • Because the policy engine is external to the cloud IoT broker, the same CV-ABACG policies can be re-hosted on equivalent cloud or edge platforms without changing the model.
  • The reported policy-evaluation times, roughly 0.08 to 0.52 milliseconds for 10 to 50 requests, indicate that the authorization check itself is not the dominant latency in cloud-assisted notification delivery.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A consequence the paper leaves implicit is that the trust assumption on reported attributes creates an attack point: if a vehicle spoofs its GPS coordinates, it can be moved into a different group and either receive alerts it should not see or miss alerts it should see, so real deployments would need a separate attestation or anomaly-detection layer.
  • The same group-inheritance machinery could be applied inside the vehicle, treating ECUs as objects whose parent clustered object propagates context attributes, to enforce isolation between infotainment and safety-critical subsystems.
  • Dynamic groups keyed to speed as well as location could support time-critical applications such as emergency-vehicle preemption, provided the group-assignment latency stays within the application's deadline.
  • A testable extension would measure the false-notification rate under adversarial attribute injection by comparing group-assignment decisions against ground-truth positions, directly quantifying the cost of the trust assumption.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents CV-ABACG, an attribute-based access control model for connected vehicles that augments ABAC with a group hierarchy and 'dynamic groups' assigned to vehicles based on attributes such as GPS coordinates and speed. It formalizes sources, clustered objects, objects, groups, operations, activities, policies, and attributes (Tables 1-2), and describes an AWS IoT prototype (Section 5) implementing dynamic group assignment and attribute inheritance, with two use cases (deer-threat notification and car-pooling) and performance metrics showing policy evaluation time and notification scoping. The central claim is that this model enforces multi-layer authorization policies, including user privacy preferences, in a cloud-assisted smart-car ecosystem, and that the prototype demonstrates real-world viability.

Significance. If the model and implementation were fully substantiated, the paper would be a useful contribution to access control for vehicular IoT, combining a group hierarchy with attribute inheritance and user-privacy policies in a practically motivated setting. The paper is clearly written and transparent about its scope: it explicitly acknowledges the trusted-attribute assumption and the proof-of-concept nature of the AWS evaluation. The formal definitions in Section 4.2 provide a concrete policy language and inheritance rules, and the prototype description includes enough detail (sequence diagrams, policy snippets, group snapshots) to be reproducible in principle. However, the paper provides no machine-checked proofs or public code, and no security or safety properties are formally established; the significance thus rests on the plausibility of the model and the illustrative evaluation rather than on verified guarantees.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, Table 1] The formal model defines directG : CO -> G as a static mapping and supplies no transition rule, administrative operation, or authorization policy that changes group membership as attributes such as GPS coordinates or speed change. Because the paper's central claim is a 'formalized dynamic groups' model, and because the authorization decisions in Section 5 (e.g., which location group receives a deer-threat alert) depend on the current value of directG, this is a load-bearing omission: correctness over time cannot be established, and no invariant or safety property about group membership is proved. The dynamic behavior appears only in Section 5.3 as an external smart-car controller implemented with Boto/AWS SDK calls. The authors should either formally extend the model with group-assignment and group-removal operations (with preconditions and effects) or revise the claim to describe a static ABAC model with a group hierarchy plus a separate implementation of dynamic membership.
  2. [Section 4.2, Table 1 (effGatt for atomic attributes)] The atomic-attribute inheritance rule selects the parent group whose effective attribute value is 'updated most recently,' but the formal model defines no update timestamps, version numbers, or ordering on attribute updates. As a result, the recursive definition of effGatt is underspecified and the claimed inheritance semantics (e.g., the Deer_Threat example in Section 5.2) cannot be evaluated formally. A formal account of recency—for example, a global or per-attribute partial order on updates—is needed for the definitions to be unambiguous.
  3. [Section 5.4] The experimental evaluation uses 50 simulated vehicles, reports policy-enforcement times without repeated trials or confidence intervals in Table 3 and Figure 12, and compares only against a 'no policy' condition rather than against prior access-control approaches or simpler group-free ABAC baselines. The notification-scoping result in Figure 11 largely restates the intended logic of the location-based policies, so it is a demonstration of the policy semantics rather than an independent performance or relevance benchmark. The paper should either provide a more rigorous evaluation (repeated runs, error bars, and appropriate baselines) or explicitly characterize the metrics as illustrative proof-of-concept measurements, which would weaken the 'detailed performance metrics' claim in the abstract.
  4. [Section 4.2 (trust assumption)] The model assumes that attributes reported by sources and objects are trusted, as stated explicitly in Section 4.2. A concrete risk is GPS spoofing: a vehicle reporting false coordinates can be assigned to the wrong location group and receive (or be denied) notifications, and a malicious sensor could set Deer_Threat to ON for a group it does not actually observe. Because the paper acknowledges this as out of scope, it is a scope limitation rather than an inconsistency, but it should be weighed in the security claims; a brief discussion of possible mitigations (e.g., SCMS-style message authentication, plausibility checks on reported coordinates) would help position the model in practice.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] In the definition of Authorization(a, s), the expression ends with 'Authopn(s : S , x3)'; this should presumably be 'Authopn(s : S , xn)', and the comma-separated list of Authop conjuncts should be joined by an explicit logical conjunction to avoid ambiguity.
  2. [Section 5.4] The paragraph preceding Figure 12 contains grammatical errors ('The X axis is each graph shows') and Figure 11's text says the cars for both use cases are 'clubbed together,' which makes the figure harder to interpret; separating the deer-threat and car-pool results would improve clarity.
  3. [References] Reference [63] misspells 'Security Credential Management System' as 'Securty Credential Management System,' and several AWS references contain 'A WS' with an unintended space.
  4. [Section 4.1] The requirement that 'a vehicle or CO can be direct member of only one group at same hierarchy level' is not captured by the formal definition of directG as a single function CO -> G, which does not reference hierarchy levels; the constraint should be stated as an explicit axiom on directG and GH.
  5. [Section 5.3] The example says Vehicle-1, initially in Location-D, publishes coordinates and 'its new location changes to Location-A,' but the relationship between the given coordinate pair and Location-A is not shown in Figure 6; a cross-reference or a small table would make the demonstration easier to follow.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the formal model is self-contained and the implementation metrics are demonstrations of the policies, not fitted predictions.

full rationale

The formal model in Tables 1 and 2 defines effective attributes recursively with base cases from the group hierarchy partial order; no definition reduces to the target result. Dynamic group assignment is described in Section 4.1 but not formalized as a transition rule in Table 1, so the 'dynamic' behavior is implemented in AWS (Section 5.3) rather than derived in the formal model; this is an internal completeness gap, not a circular reduction. The relevance metric in Figure 11 counts vehicles selected by the explicit policies defined in Section 5.3, so the reduced count is entailed by those policy definitions; this is a demonstration of intended behavior, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Self-citations (E-ACO architecture [42], the prior CODASPY version [36]) provide architectural context and are not load-bearing for the formal ABAC definitions, which are presented and justified in this paper. The explicit trust assumption (Section 4.2) is a stated limitation, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no new physical or conceptual entities beyond the dynamic groups construct, which is a standard administrative grouping abstraction. The main load-bearing assumptions are trust in reported attributes and stability of policies during evaluation.

free parameters (1)
  • Location group boundaries and center coordinates = e.g., Location-A Center-Latitude 29.4745, Center-Longitude -98.503
    Chosen by hand for the demo; vehicles are assigned to groups based on these coordinates. They are not derived from data or from the model.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Attributes supplied by sources and objects are trusted, such as GPS coordinates reported by a car or data from a sensor.
    Stated in Section 4.2. The model relies on this to make group assignment and authorization decisions; the paper explicitly defers establishing trust to future work.
  • domain assumption No policies or attributes change during the evaluation of an activity.
    Stated in Section 4.1. This keeps the authorization decision stable during an evaluation, but may not hold in a dynamic multi-request environment without synchronization.
  • standard math Group hierarchy is a partial order, so recursive attribute inheritance is well-defined.
    Used in Section 4.2 for effGatt; well-foundedness of the recursive union definition requires the partial-order assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Secure Cloud Assisted Smart Cars Using Dynamic Groups and Attribute Based Access Control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PN56VTVP

@misc{pith2026190808112,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Secure Cloud Assisted Smart Cars Using Dynamic Groups and Attribute Based Access Control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PN56VTVP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08112}
}
read the original abstract

Future smart cities and intelligent world will have connected vehicles and smart cars as its indispensable and most essential components. The communication and interaction among such connected entities in this vehicular internet of things (IoT) domain, which also involves smart traffic infrastructure, road-side sensors, restaurant with beacons, autonomous emergency vehicles, etc., offer innumerable real-time user applications and provide safer and pleasant driving experience to consumers. Having more than 100 million lines of code and hundreds of sensors, these connected vehicles (CVs) expose a large attack surface, which can be remotely compromised and exploited by malicious attackers. Security and privacy are serious concerns that impede the adoption of smart connected cars, which if not properly addressed will have grave implications with risk to human life and limb. In this research, we present a formalized dynamic groups and attribute-based access control (ABAC) model (referred as \cvac) for smart cars ecosystem, where the proposed model not only considers system wide attributes-based security policies but also takes into account the individual user privacy preferences for allowing or denying service notifications, alerts and operations to on-board resources. Further, we introduce a novel notion of groups in vehicular IoT, which are dynamically assigned to moving entities like connected cars, based on their current GPS coordinates, speed or other attributes, to ensure relevance of location and time sensitive notification services to the consumers, to provide administrative benefits to manage large numbers of smart entities, and to enable attributes and alerts inheritance for fine-grained security authorization policies. We present proof of concept implementation of our model in AWS cloud platform demonstrating real-world uses cases along with performance metrics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08112 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Extended Access Control Oriented Architecture [42] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Representative Groups in Connected Smart Cars Environment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A Conceptual CV-ABACG Model car-pooling (CP) service or those which want to receive gas station offers. Group hierarchy [41, 59] also enables attributes inheritance from parent to child groups. It helps in easy propagation and administration of alerts (like flash flood, deer threat or ice on road), where an alert generated at higher level of hierarchy (like a location group) is automatically trickled to all its chil… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: AWS Cloud Assisted Prototype Architecture [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Three Level Groups Hierarchy Defined in AWS Implementation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The area was demarcated into four locations and a moving vehicle belongs to a subgroup [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Snapshot of Table Showing Dynamic Groups and Associated Connected Vehicles at One Point of Time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Snippet of Attribute Based Policies Implemented in AWS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Sequence Diagram for Dynamic Groups and Attributes Assignment in AWS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Sequence Diagram for Attributes Based Authorization in AWS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparing the Scoping and Relevance of Alerts with and without Policy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Performance Comparison with and without ABAC policy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Connected Vehicles and Your Privacy

    2014. Connected Vehicles and Your Privacy. https://www.its.dot.gov/factsheets/pdf/Privacy_factsheet.pdf

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    2017 Roundup Of Internet Of Things Forecasts

    2017. 2017 Roundup Of Internet Of Things Forecasts . https://www.forbes.com/sites/louiscolumbus/2017/12/10/2017- roundup-of-internet-of-things-forecasts/#67005b6a1480 [Online; Accessed: 2018-05-03]

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    2018. A WS. https://aws.amazon.com/ [Online; Accessed: 2018-05-09]

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    A WS Greengrass

    2018. A WS Greengrass. https://aws.amazon.com/greengrass/ [Online; Accessed: 2018-05-27]

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    A WS-IoT

    2018. A WS-IoT. https://aws.amazon.com/iot/ [Online; Accessed: 2018-05-09]

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    A WS Lambda

    2018. A WS Lambda. https://aws.amazon.com/lambda/ [Online; Accessed: 2018-05-20]

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    A WS SDK for Python (Boto3)

    2018. A WS SDK for Python (Boto3). https://aws.amazon.com/sdk-for-python/ [Online; Accessed: 2018-05-23]

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    A WS Simple Notification Service

    2018. A WS Simple Notification Service. https://aws.amazon.com/sns/ [Online; Accessed: 2018-05-20]

    work page 2018

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Cloud IoT Core

    2018. Cloud IoT Core. [Accessed: 2019-06-05]

    2018

  2. [10]

    2018. Connected Car Market by Service (Connected Services, Safety & Security, and Autonomous Driving), Form (Embedded, Tethered, and Integrated), Network (DSRC, and Cellular), End Market, Transponder, Hardware, and Region - Global Forecast to 2025. https://www.researchandmarke...

    2018

  3. [11]

    Device Shadow Service for A WS IoT

    2018. Device Shadow Service for A WS IoT. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/iot/latest/developerguide/iot-device-shadows. html [Online; Accessed: 2019-06-19]

    2018

  4. [12]

    Google Maps Platform

    2018. Google Maps Platform. https://cloud.google.com/maps-platform/ [Online; Accessed: 2018-05-09]

    2018

  5. [13]

    Microsoft Azure IoT Hub

    2018. Microsoft Azure IoT Hub. [Accessed: 2019-05-01]

    2018

  6. [14]

    Openstack

    2018. Openstack. [Accessed: 2019-07-01]

    2018

  7. [15]

    Security and Identity for A WS IoT

    2018. Security and Identity for A WS IoT. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/iot/latest/developerguide/iot-security-identity. html [Online; Accessed: 2019-06-19]

    2018

  8. [16]

    Shadow MQTT Topics

    2018. Shadow MQTT Topics. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/iot/latest/developerguide/device-shadow-mqtt.html [Online; Accessed: 2019-06-19]

    2018

  9. [17]

    Thing Groups

    2018. Thing Groups. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/iot/latest/developerguide/thing-groups.html [Online; Accessed: 2019-06-19]

    2018

  10. [18]

    2018. Topics. https://docs.aws.amazon.com/iot/latest/developerguide/topics.html [Online; Accessed: 2019-06-19]

    2018

  11. [19]

    Uber Self-Driving Car Crash: What Really Happened

    2018. Uber Self-Driving Car Crash: What Really Happened . https://www.forbes.com/sites/meriameberboucha/2018/05/ 28/uber-self-driving-car-crash-what-really-happened/#32fff20a4dc4 [Online; Accessed: 2019-06-18]

    2018

  12. [20]

    Vehicular ad hoc networks

    2018. Vehicular ad hoc networks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_ad_hoc_network [Online; Accessed: 2018-05- 30]

    2018

  13. [21]

    Aazam and et al

    M. Aazam and et al. 2014. Cloud of Things: Integrating Internet of Things and cloud computing and the issues involved. In Proc. of IBCAST. 414–419

    2014

  14. [22]

    Al-Fuqaha and et al

    A. Al-Fuqaha and et al. 2015. Internet of things: A survey on enabling technologies, protocols, and applications. IEEE Comm. Surveys & Tutorials (2015), 2347–2376

    2015

  15. [23]

    Asma Alshehri and Ravi Sandhu. 2016. Access control models for cloud-enabled internet of things: A proposed architecture and research agenda. In Proc. of IEEE CIC . 530–538

    2016

  16. [24]

    Luigi Atzori, Antonio Iera, and Giacomo Morabito. 2010. The internet of things: A survey. Computer networks 54, 15 (2010), 2787–2805

    2010

  17. [25]

    Jim Barbaresso and et al. 2014. USDOT’s Intelligent Transportation Systems ITS Strategic Plan 2015- 2019. (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    Bhatt, F

    S. Bhatt, F. Patwa, and R. Sandhu. 2017. An Access Control Framework for Cloud-Enabled Wearable Internet of Things. In Proc. of IEEE CIC . 328–338

    2017

  19. [27]

    Smriti Bhatt, Farhan Patwa, and Ravi Sandhu. 2017. Access Control Model for AWS Internet of Things. In Proc. of NSS. Springer, 721–736

    2017

  20. [28]

    Botta, W

    A. Botta, W. de Donato, V. Persico, and A. PescapÃľ. 2014. On the Integration of Cloud Computing and Internet of Things. In Proc. of IEEE FiCLOUD . 23–30

    2014

  21. [29]

    Mohamed Eltoweissy and et al. 2010. Towards Autonomous Vehicular Clouds. In Ad Hoc Networks. Springer, 1–16

    2010

  22. [30]

    ENISA. 2017. Cyber Security and Resilience of smart cars: Good practices and recommendations . https://www.enisa. europa.eu/publications/cyber-security-and-resilience-of-smart-cars [Online; Accessed: 2018-01-27]

    2017

  23. [31]

    David F Ferraiolo, Ravi Sandhu, Serban Gavrila, D Richard Kuhn, and Ramaswamy Chandramouli. 2001. Proposed NIST standard for role-based access control. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security (TISSEC) 4, 3 (2001), 224–274

    2001

  24. [32]

    2016, March

    US GAO. 2016, March. Vehicle Cybersecurity . GAO-16-350 (2016, March). https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/676064.pdf

    2016

  25. [33]

    Gerla, E

    M. Gerla, E. Lee, G. Pau, and U. Lee. 2014. Internet of vehicles: From intelligent grid to autonomous cars and vehicular clouds. In Proc. of IEEE WF-IoT. 241–246

    2014

  26. [34]

    Gubbi and et al

    J. Gubbi and et al. 2013. Internet of Things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions. Future generation computer systems 29, 7 (2013), 1645–1660. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: August 2019. Secure Cloud Assisted Smart Cars Using Dynamic Gro...

    2013

  27. [35]

    Maanak Gupta. 2018. Secure Cloud Assisted Smart Cars and Big Data: Access Control Models and Implementation . Ph.D. Dissertation. The University of Texas at San Antonio

    2018

  28. [36]

    Maanak Gupta, James Benson, Farhan Patwa, and Ravi Sandhu. 2019. Dynamic Groups and Attribute-Based Access Control for Next-Generation Smart Cars. In Proceedings of the Ninth ACM Conference on Data and Application Security and Privacy (CODASPY ’19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 61–...

    2019

  29. [37]

    Gupta and et al

    M. Gupta and et al. 2017. Multi-Layer Authorization Framework for a Representative Hadoop Ecosystem Deployment. In Proc. of ACM SACMAT. 183–190

    2017

  30. [38]

    Maanak Gupta, Farhan Patwa, and Ravi Sandhu. 2017. Object-Tagged RBAC Model for the Hadoop Ecosystem. In Proc. of DBSec. Springer, 63–81

    2017

  31. [39]

    Maanak Gupta, Farhan Patwa, and Ravi Sandhu. 2017. POSTER: Access control model for the Hadoop Ecosystem. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM on Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies . ACM, 125–127

    2017

  32. [40]

    Maanak Gupta, Farhan Patwa, and Ravi Sandhu. 2018. An Attribute-Based Access Control Model for Secure Big Data Processing in Hadoop Ecosystem. In Proc. of the Third ACM Workshop on Attribute-Based Access Control . 13–24

    2018

  33. [41]

    Maanak Gupta and Ravi Sandhu. 2016. The GURAG Administrative Model for User and Group Attribute Assignment. In Proc. of NSS. Springer, 318–332

    2016

  34. [42]

    Maanak Gupta and Ravi Sandhu. 2018. Authorization Framework for Secure Cloud Assisted Connected Cars and Vehicular Internet of Things. In Proc. of ACM SACMAT. 193–204

    2018

  35. [43]

    Maanak Gupta and Ravi Sandhu. 2018. POSTER: Access Control Needs in Smart Cars. https://www.ieee-security.org/ TC/SP2018/poster-abstracts/oakland2018-paper26-poster-abstract.pdf. (2018). [Online; Accessed: 2018-10-04]

    2018

  36. [44]

    Per Hallgren, Martin Ochoa, and Andrei Sabelfeld. 2015. Innercircle: A parallelizable decentralized privacy-preserving location proximity protocol. In Privacy, Security and Trust (PST), 2015 13th Annual Conference on . IEEE, 1–6

    2015

  37. [45]

    Vincent C Hu, David Ferraiolo, Rick Kuhn, Arthur R Friedman, Alan J Lang, Margaret M Cogdell, Adam Schnitzer, Kenneth Sandlin, Robert Miller, and Karen Scarfone. 2014. Guide to attribute based access control (ABAC) definition and considerations. NIST Special Publication 800-162 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    Vincent C Hu, D Richard Kuhn, and David F Ferraiolo. 2015. Attribute-based access control. IEEE Computer 2 (2015), 85–88

    2015

  39. [47]

    Rasheed Hussain and et al. 2012. Rethinking vehicular communications: Merging VANET with cloud computing. In Proc. of IEEE CloudCom . 606–609

    2012

  40. [48]

    Xin Jin, Ram Krishnan, and Ravi Sandhu. 2012. A unified attribute-based access control model covering DAC, MAC and RBAC. In DBSec. Springer, 41–55

    2012

  41. [49]

    Lea and M

    R. Lea and M. Blackstock. 2014. City Hub: A Cloud-Based IoT Platform for Smart Cities. In Proc. of IEEE CloudCom . 799–804

    2014

  42. [50]

    Arvind Narayanan, Narendran Thiagarajan, Mugdha Lakhani, Michael Hamburg, Dan Boneh, et al. 2011. Location Privacy via Private Proximity Testing.. In NDSS, Vol. 11

    2011

  43. [51]

    NHTSA. 2016. NHTSA and Vehicle CyberSecurity. NHTSA Report (2016)

    2016

  44. [52]

    2016, October

    NHTSA. 2016, October. Cybersecurity Best Practices for Modern Vehicles. NHTSA Report No. DOT HS 812 333 (2016, October)

    2016

  45. [53]

    Nitti and et al

    M. Nitti and et al. 2016. The virtual object as a major element of the internet of things: a survey. IEEE Comm. Surveys & Tutorials (2016), 1228–1240

    2016

  46. [54]

    Stephan Olariu and et al. 2011. Taking VANET to the clouds. International Journal of Pervasive Computing and Communications 7, 1 (2011), 7–21

    2011

  47. [55]

    Jaehong Park, Ravi Sandhu, and Yuan Cheng. 2011. Acon: Activity-centric access control for social computing. In Proc. of IEEE ARES. 242–247

    2011

  48. [56]

    Jaehong Park, Ravi Sandhu, and Yuan Cheng. 2011. A user-activity-centric framework for access control in online social networks. IEEE Internet Computing 15, 5 (2011), 62–65

    2011

  49. [57]

    Ravi S Sandhu, Edward J Coyne, Hal L Feinstein, and Charles E Youman. 1996. Role-based access control models. Computer 29, 2 (1996), 38–47

    1996

  50. [58]

    Ravi S Sandhu and Pierangela Samarati. 1994. Access control: principle and practice. IEEE communications magazine 32, 9 (1994), 40–48

    1994

  51. [59]

    Daniel Servos and Sylvia L Osborn. 2014. HGABAC: Towards a Formal Model of Hierarchical Attribute-Based Access Control. In International Symposium on Foundations and Practice of Security . Springer, 187–204

    2014

  52. [60]

    European Union. 2017. Certificate Policy for Deployment and Operation of European Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems (C-ITS). https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/c-its_certificate_policy_release_1.pdf

    2017

  53. [61]

    European Union. 2017. Security Policy & Governance Framework for Deployment and Operation of European Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems (C-ITS) . https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/c-its_security_policy_release_ 1.pdf

    2017

  54. [62]

    USAToday. 2017. Chinese group hacks a Tesla for the second year in a row . , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: August 2019. 24 Gupta et al

    2017

  55. [63]

    USDOT. 2016. Securty Credential Management System . https://www.its.dot.gov/resources/scms.htm [Online; Accessed: 2018-01-13]

    2016

  56. [64]

    Md Whaiduzzaman and et al. 2014. A survey on vehicular cloud computing. Journal of Network and Computer Applications 40 (2014), 325–344

    2014

  57. [65]

    Wired. 2015. Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway-With Me in It

    2015

  58. [66]

    Ge Zhong, Ian Goldberg, and Urs Hengartner. 2007. Louis, lester and pierre: Three protocols for location privacy. In International Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies. Springer, 62–76. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: August 2019

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.