CN105468979A - Aggregation relationship analysis method of negotiation trust rule - Google Patents
Aggregation relationship analysis method of negotiation trust rule Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- CN105468979A CN105468979A CN201510782861.4A CN201510782861A CN105468979A CN 105468979 A CN105468979 A CN 105468979A CN 201510782861 A CN201510782861 A CN 201510782861A CN 105468979 A CN105468979 A CN 105468979A
- Authority
- CN
- China
- Prior art keywords
- negotiation
- sides
- party
- rule
- consult
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Pending
Links
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F21/00—Security arrangements for protecting computers, components thereof, programs or data against unauthorised activity
- G06F21/30—Authentication, i.e. establishing the identity or authorisation of security principals
- G06F21/31—User authentication
- G06F21/33—User authentication using certificates
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F21/00—Security arrangements for protecting computers, components thereof, programs or data against unauthorised activity
- G06F21/50—Monitoring users, programs or devices to maintain the integrity of platforms, e.g. of processors, firmware or operating systems
- G06F21/57—Certifying or maintaining trusted computer platforms, e.g. secure boots or power-downs, version controls, system software checks, secure updates or assessing vulnerabilities
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F21/00—Security arrangements for protecting computers, components thereof, programs or data against unauthorised activity
- G06F21/60—Protecting data
- G06F21/62—Protecting access to data via a platform, e.g. using keys or access control rules
- G06F21/6218—Protecting access to data via a platform, e.g. using keys or access control rules to a system of files or objects, e.g. local or distributed file system or database
- G06F21/6245—Protecting personal data, e.g. for financial or medical purposes
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F2221/00—Indexing scheme relating to security arrangements for protecting computers, components thereof, programs or data against unauthorised activity
- G06F2221/03—Indexing scheme relating to G06F21/50, monitoring users, programs or devices to maintain the integrity of platforms
- G06F2221/034—Test or assess a computer or a system
Landscapes
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
- Computer Security & Cryptography (AREA)
- Computer Hardware Design (AREA)
- Software Systems (AREA)
- General Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- Bioethics (AREA)
- General Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- Medical Informatics (AREA)
- Databases & Information Systems (AREA)
- Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)
Abstract
The invention provides an aggregation relationship analysis method of a negotiation trust rule. The aggregation relationship analysis method comprises the following steps: both negotiation parties strictly adopt one-step negotiation, wherein the first party in the both negotiation parties announces an own certificate set to the second party in the both negotiation parties in one time, and the second party in the both negotiation parties announces the own certificate set to the first party in the both negotiation parties in one time; and under a situation that the certificate set of the first party contains the certificates which belong to the certificate set of the second party and the certificate set of the second party contains the certificates which belong to the certificate set of the first party, negotiation is judged to succeed.
Description
Technical field
The present invention relates to network security, access control, automated trust negotiation field, more particularly, the present invention relates to a kind of set relations analytical approach of consulting to trust rule.
Background technology
In traditional trust negotiation, before negotiation, there is no the process of trusting rule conflict and detecting and clearing up, consult both sides and directly organize negotiation according to the negotiation trust rule made separately.But if trust rule to there is conflict, in negotiations process, conflict is difficult to detected and clears up, and consults according to the trust regular weaves of conflict, has both wasted the mutual time, and result also in unnecessary privacy and expose.Therefore, before negotiation, carry out trusts rule conflict detect, and to conflict work clearing up and be very important to a certain degree.Although researcher has done more work in collision detection.
For example, document " H.Jin; Z.Liao; D.Zou.Anewapproachtohidepolicyforautomatedtrustnegotiati on.Proceedingof1stInternationalWorkshoponSecurity; 2006; pp168-178 " is attempted to utilize 0-1 to show to describe the method for trust rule to detect conflict, but does not provide relevant theoretical foundation and further investigation.Document " Z.S.Liao; H.Jin.Alogicpredicateautomatedtrustnegotiationmodel.Proc eedingsofthe2ndInternationalConferenceonCommunicationsan dNetworkinginChina; 2007; pp23-26 " proposes trust rule is carried out to linear description and analyzed, but these are mostly is for theoretic research, not easily applies realization.Document " D.Q.Zou; Z.S.Liao; Anewapproachforhidingpolicyandcheckingpolicyconsistency. SecondInternationalConferenceonInformationInternationalC onferenceonInformationSecurityandAssurance; 2008; pp231-236 " is implemented angle proposition matrix form from algorithm and is described trust rule and give collision detection algorithm, but cannot change flexibly and expansion according to demands such as applied environments.
But, these describe, analyze the method for consulting to trust rule does not have to analyze trust rule before negotiation, the mutual set relations of trusting rule are not well utilized, the foundation of progress to negotiations process and trust can not be helped, and even further to trusting formulating and optimizing of rule.
Summary of the invention
Technical matters to be solved by this invention is for there is above-mentioned defect in prior art; a kind of set relations analytical approach of consulting to trust rule is provided; set can be utilized to trust rule to negotiation be described; the analysis that rule carries out gathering character is trusted to consulting; thus in automated trust negotiation; some in-problem negotiations can be made to stop in good time; make may successfully consult to continue mutual and progress; under the prerequisite of protection each side privacy, effectively solve the problem that trusting relationship is set up.
In order to realize above-mentioned technical purpose, according to the present invention, provide a kind of set relations analytical approach of consulting to trust rule, comprise: make to consult both sides and strictly take single step to consult, the set of certificates of wherein consulting the disposable disclosure of first party oneself in both sides, to the second party of consulting in both sides, consults the set of certificates of the disposable disclosure of second party oneself in both sides to the first party of consulting in both sides; Exist to belong in the certificate of the set of certificates of second party and the set of certificates of second party in the set of certificates of first party and exist when belonging to the certificate of the set of certificates of first party, judge to consult successfully.
Preferably, peer-to-peer analyzing and processing, relation of inclusion analyzing and processing and overlapping relation analyzing and processing is performed for the set of certificates of the first party of consulting in both sides and the set of certificates of consulting the second party in both sides.
Preferably, in peer-to-peer analyzing and processing, if it is reciprocity that negotiation both sides trust rule set in set, then judge that consulting both sides possesses roughly the same basic with the negotiation of equilibrium.
Preferably, in peer-to-peer analyzing and processing, if the trust rule set consulting both sides is folk prescription equity in set, then the result making to consult to consult to obtain in either party and the 3rd negotiation side in both sides is all adopted by the opposing party consulted in both sides.
Preferably, in relation of inclusion analyzing and processing, if the trust rule of consulting a negotiation side in both sides comprises the trust rule of another the negotiation side consulted in both sides, then in negotiations process, make described negotiation side's disclosure rules supplementary set to another negotiation side, if another negotiation side meets the requirement of these rules and discloses relevant information, then judge to consult successfully.
Preferably, in overlapping relation analyzing and processing, the common factor of trust rule consulting both sides is more, then judging to consult both sides, to consult successful possibility relatively large.
Accompanying drawing explanation
By reference to the accompanying drawings, and by reference to detailed description below, will more easily there is more complete understanding to the present invention and more easily understand its adjoint advantage and feature, wherein:
Fig. 1 schematically shows the process flow diagram consulting the set relations analytical approach of trusting rule according to the preferred embodiment of the invention.
Fig. 2 schematically shows set relation of inclusion.
Fig. 3 schematically shows the relation of two intersection of sets.
Fig. 4 schematically shows the relation of many intersection of sets.
It should be noted that, accompanying drawing is for illustration of the present invention, and unrestricted the present invention.Note, represent that the accompanying drawing of structure may not be draw in proportion.Further, in accompanying drawing, identical or similar element indicates identical or similar label.
Embodiment
In order to make content of the present invention clearly with understandable, below in conjunction with specific embodiments and the drawings, content of the present invention is described in detail.
For the ease of understanding, first introduce the basic syntax structure of trusting logic rules and describing below.
Trust the grammatical symbol related in rule to have:
Propositional variable: s, c
1, c
2..., c
n, wherein s represents corresponding resource, c
irepresent certificate.Special s sometimes also can regard a certificate as.
Propositional constant: true, false, represents that certificate unconditionally can disclose or forever can not disclose respectively.
Conjunction in rule body: ∧, ∨,
represent logical and between certificate variable or, inverse operations.
Left and right bracket: ().
The dependence functional symbol of resource and rule body: ←, represent that the certificate requirements meeting rule body then discloses the dependence operation of resource.
Thus, the basic syntax structure of trusting the logical description method of rule is as follows: for resource s, the regular p of corresponding trust
sform can be expressed as: s ← f
s(c
1, c
2..., c
n), wherein f
s(c
1, c
2..., c
n) be comprise trusted certificate c
1, c
2..., c
n, boolean contant true, false, Boolean operator ∧, ∨,
and the expression formula of bracket.← semanteme be: to satisfy condition f if consult the other side
s(c
1, c
2..., c
n), namely disclose the certificate of requirement, then think s ← f
s(c
1, c
2..., c
n) set up, namely can successful shared resource s.
In addition, if there are two the trust rules of shape as C ← B, B ← A, then according to logic theory, C ← A can be released and set up.
Therefore, s ← f
s(c
1, c
2..., c
n) represent that and if only if that the other side discloses trusted certificate c
1, c
2..., c
n, local trusted certificate s could be disclosed.Especially, trust regular s ← true and represent that trusted certificate s is without the need to trusting rule protection, can unconditionally disclose to any negotiator.On the contrary, trust regular s ← false and represent that trusted certificate s in no instance can be disclosed.
The true value that there is the proposition of following some trust logic rules is portrayed:
1. identically true formula (tautology): even f
s(c
1, c
2..., c
n) ≡ 1, then rule body f
s(c
1, c
2..., c
n) be identically true formula (tautology);
2. contradiction (contradiction formula): even f
s(c
1, c
2..., c
n) ≡ 0, then rule body f
s(c
1, c
2..., c
n) be contradiction (contradiction formula);
3. probable formula: as certificate c
1, c
2..., c
nwhen taking different assignment respectively, f
s(c
1, c
2..., c
n) may value 1, also possibility value 0, then rule body f
s(c
1, c
2..., c
n) be probable formula;
4. formula can be met: when having a c at least
1, c
2..., c
nassignment combines, and makes f
s(c
1, c
2..., c
n) value be true time, claim this assignment { c
i=0 or 1|1≤i≤n} be logical expression f
s(c
1, c
2..., c
n) solution, expression formula f
s(c
1, c
2..., c
n) be satiable.
From aforementioned, trust rule and can regard as logical proposition one by one, wherein trust and reach the proposition that rule is key, it constitutes a flogic system with trust intermediate rule etc.Obviously, in this flogic system, the logic property of trusting rule can be carried out, as the analysis of equivalence, harmony, satisfiability etc.
Analyzing in the logic property process of trusting rule, the criterion of some logical deductions by reasoning may be used.Might as well suppose for the regular s ← c of trust
i(1≤i≤n), the deduction criterion of the logical operation between them is listed below:
(L1):(s←c
1)^(s←c
2)＝(s←c
1^c
2)
(L2)：(s←c
1)∨(s←c
2)＝(s←c
1∨c
2)
(L3)：(s←c
1)∨((s←c
1)^(s←c
2))＝(s←c
1)
(L4)：(s←c
1)∨(s←false)＝(s←c
1)
(L5)：(s←c
1)∧(s←true)＝(s←c
1)
(L6)：(s←c
1)∨(s←true)＝s←true
(L7)：(s←c
1)∧(s←false)＝s←false
(L8)：(s←c
1)∧(s←c
2)＝(s←c
2)∧(s←c
1)
(L9)：(s←c
1)∨(s←c
2)＝(s←c
2)∨(s←c
1)
(L10)：(s←c
1)∧((s←c
2)∨(s←c
3))＝(s←c
1∧c
2)∨(s←c
1∧c
3)
(L11)：(s←c
1)∨((s←c
2)∧(s←c
3))＝(s←c
1∨c
2)∧(s←c
1∨c
3)
(L12)：s←
(
c
1)＝s←c
1
(L13)：s←
(c
1∨c
2)＝(s←
c
1)∧(s←
c
2)
(L14)：s←
(c
1∧c
2)＝(s←
c
1)∨(s←
c
2)
Process flow diagram below with reference to Fig. 1 specifically describes the present invention.
(1) opportunity analyzed is before negotiation, suppose both sides consult trust rule all known when static analysis.Generally, consult to trust rule and formulate separately by both party respectively, only having when consulting to start, just in succession disclosing one by one and judging, until consult successfully or failed.But, if certain analysis can be done to the character of trusting mutual relationship implicit between rule, trust rule exists itself before negotiation, and then hold consultation, just can find some problems early, to follow-up negotiation and even formulated and optimized good directive function further to rule.Therefore, carrying out trusting opportunity of rule analysis is before negotiation, to the in addition static analysis of both sides' negotiation rules.
(2) that analyzes trusts rule to the negotiation liking both sides.Though consult to trust rule to be formulated separately by negotiation side, but trust negotiation is the process that two sides participate in, need dynamic interaction to complete.Therefore, both sides trust the certain contact of existence between rule, and interact.That trusts rule analysis trusts rule to the negotiation liking both sides, and the trust rule by both sides puts together, and integrally analyzes.
Set thought is the way of thinking using the concept, language, computing, figure etc. of set to solve problem.Set thought is a kind of important way of thinking, and in the solution of computer realm problem, set thought has a wide range of applications.The present invention is according to the analysis of negotiation being trusted to the regular form of expression, by rational agreement, explore and represent that rule is trusted in negotiation by the method for set, thus utilize the concept such as subset, common factor, union, difference set in set to carry out simply potential set relations in trust rule, facilitate, promptly analyze, draw relevant conclusion.
In order to consult to trust rule by set of applications conceptual description, make the analysis consulting trust rule simple and convenient, and there is realistic meaning, below certain supposition is done to negotiation trust rule and negotiation mode, although this supposition makes the analysis of set relations can not be applicable to the most general trust negotiation situation, but the situation of this supposition is ubiquitous in real trust negotiation really, and the set relations analysis carried out under the assumption can embody the specific aim of set analysis.
Assuming that 1 (to consulting the supposition of trusting rule): assuming that negotiation side A has multiple negotiation to trust regular p
a1, p
a2..., p
an, each regular p
aiall the form of meta-rule, i.e. each regular p
aithe rule body of (1≤i≤n) all only with a certificate c
birelevant, then the negotiation trust rule description of A becomes aggregate form, is designated as P
a={ c
b1, c
b2..., c
bn.In like manner, the side of negotiation B also has multiple negotiation to trust regular p
b1, p
b2..., p
bm, each regular p
bj(1≤j≤m) is all the form of meta-rule, then the negotiation trust rule description of B becomes aggregate form, is designated as P
b={ c
a1, c
a2..., c
am.
Assuming that 2 (supposition to negotiation mode): assuming that the mode that negotiation both sides A, B hold consultation strictly takes single step to consult, i.e. the disposable disclosure set of certificates A of A
certto the disposable disclosure set of certificates B of B, B
certto A, if
c ∈ P
b, and
c ' ∈ P
athen consult successfully, otherwise consult unsuccessfully.
Based on this, the negotiation trust rule of consulting both sides can become P with set expression
a={ c
b1, c
b2..., c
bn, P
b={ c
a1, c
a2..., c
am.
Example 1: if client A is for using the i-Shanghai wireless network of China Telecom B, need to use phone number c
1, or mailbox c
2, or I.D. c
3log-on message, A then requires that B possesses website qualification s
1, or Third Party Authentication s
2, or user grading system s
3disclose associated personal information Deng, then the negotiation of both sides is trusted regular usable set and is expressed as:
P
A＝{s
1,s
2,s
3}，P
B＝{c
1,c
2,c
3}。
The mode that A, B both sides hold consultation takes single step to consult, and even A discloses certificate collection A
certin comprise c
1, c
2, c
3in one or more, and the certificate collection B that B discloses
certin comprise s
1, s
2, s
3in one or more, then consult successfully, otherwise consult unsuccessfully.
(1) peer-to-peer analyzing and processing
In open network environment, there is the network structure of a lot of equity, as in P2P structure, each node has the two-way function of resource requestor and resource provider simultaneously, and the requirement to the other side held of both sides also may just the other side to the requirement of oneself.Therefore, the rule that mutual in network environment node holds equity is ubiquitous phenomenon.
Definition 1 (consult both sides and trust regular collection peer-to-peer): the set of establishing negotiation both sides to consult to trust rule is respectively P
a={ c
b1, c
b2..., c
bn, P
b={ c
a1, c
a2..., c
am, if || P
a||=|| P
b||, the element number namely comprised is identical, and
there is p
i∈ P
b,
there is p
j∈ P
a, then P is claimed
awith P
bequity in set, the trust rule of namely consulting both sides A, B has set peer-to-peer.
True 1: if consult both sides, to trust rule set in set be reciprocity, and be embodied in negotiation, the trust of both sides requires it is the same, then consult both sides and possess roughly the same basic with the negotiation of equilibrium, it is higher to consult successful possibility.
Example 2: certain university is provided with the fair market of second-hand article trading in the school; before A, B classmate concludes the business; A requires that B provides this university student to demonstrate,prove and just can conclude the business with him, and B has also formulated the trust rule of protection oneself, requires that A also will provide student's identity card just can conclude the business equally.Therefore, the trust rule set P of both sides is consulted
awith P
bthere is set peer-to-peer.
But when this both sides require roughly the same with equilibrium, if relate to the higher certificate of disposable disclosure susceptibility, and both sides are reluctant to take the lead in disclosing, then consult to have reached an impasse, and now need by trusted third party's just negotiable success.
Regular collection peer-to-peer is trusted, the not Tongfang of holding consultation with same negotiation side B, i.e. A except the both sides participating in consulting exist
1and A
2between also may there is peer-to-peer, namely consult folk prescription equity, be described below:
Definition 2 (consult folk prescription trust regular collection peer-to-peers): establish hold consultation with B side have two sides, be A respectively
1and A
2, it is P respectively that rule set is trusted in the negotiation that they are held
a1and P
a2if, || P
a1||=|| P
a2||, the element number namely comprised is identical, and for
there is p
i∈ P
a2,
there is p
j∈ P
a1, then claim to trust rule set P
a1with P
a2folk prescription equity in set.
True 2: if consult two participant A
1and A
2trust rule set set on be folk prescription equity, then A
1and A
2the trust rule of Fang Chiyou is identical, therefore can be adopted by the opposing party by either party and the result that negotiation side B consults to obtain.
Example 3: student A and A ' of certain class of university wishes certain Universities ' Websites of access B, then, in negotiations process, the trust rule that A and A ' holds is folk prescription equity in set.Namely the result that A and B consults also is suitable for completely for A ' and the negotiation of B.Therefore, if find that A and A ' is the trust rule holding folk prescription set peer-to-peer, then after A and B has consulted by analyzing, A ' is then without the need to spended time and B consult to predict the outcome again, can duplicate negotiation loops be avoided like this, reduce negotiation overhead, improve negotiation efficiency.
(2) relation of inclusion analyzing and processing
In real network environment; a kind of membership of the superior and the subordinate is there is between node; between the branch offices of a such as mechanism and general headquarters; trusting relationship is carried out when setting up between them; obvious branch offices breaks the wall of mistrust and the requirement of reserved resource is probably also included within general headquarters among the requirement of branch offices, and this is a kind of relation of inclusion of broad sense.
Definition 3 (trusting rule set relation of inclusion): the negotiation of establishing negotiation both sides to hold is trusted rule set and is respectively P
a, P
bif, for
there is p
i∈ P
b, then P is claimed
bcomprise P
a, be designated as
True 3: if the trust rule P of the side of negotiation B
bcomprise the trust rule P of negotiation side A
a, then illustrate that B side will more than A side for the requirement of Attribute certificate, as shown in Figure 2.Therefore, in negotiations process, B can disclosure rules supplementary set P
b-P
ato A side, if A meets the requirement of these rules and is ready to disclose relevant information, then consult successfully, otherwise consult unsuccessfully.Therefore, trust rule set is existed to the negotiation both sides of relation of inclusion, negotiations process can be accelerated by the method.
Example 4: hold consultation between the student A and squad leader A ' of certain class of university, wish the operation seeing the other side, the trust rule set of both sides is P respectively
a, P
a '.Because squad leader A ' is also student, then the rule that itself and A hold in consulting has relation of inclusion
judge the relation of inclusion of both rules if therefore can analyze, then A ' can by disclosing supplementary set P
a '-P
amode do accelerate consult exploration.
(3) overlapping relation analyzing and processing
In network trust is consulted, probably occur such a case, consulting both sides exactly has a lot of identical requirement to the other side.If this requirement identical mutually of both sides is more, illustrates that both sides' negotiation has more common background, roughly can infer that both sides consult successful possibility thus larger.
Definition 4 (trusting rule set overlapping relation): suppose that the trust rule set that negotiation both sides hold is respectively P
a, P
bif,
and p
i∈ P
b, then P is claimed
bwith P
abe crossing, be designated as P
a∩ P
b≠ φ.
True 4: trusting rule is the basis that negotiation is carried out, and consult that success or not and both sides trust between rule in close relations relevant.The trust rule of consulting both sides has more common factors, then mean that consulting both sides has common negotiation background, and it is relatively larger to consult successful possibility.
The situation of intersection of sets as shown in Figure 3, Figure 4, wherein in Fig. 3, if P
b∩ P
a={ p
i, then trust regular p
ican represent to a certain extent and consult the common negotiation basis of both sides.Therefore, by { p
inumber and the analysis of character, can the coarse evaluation success ratio of consulting.
Example 5: certain university student A, for logging in certain Universities ' Websites B query-related information, suppose that A and B belongs to a university, therefore their trust rule can be all the ask for something for resource work in the school, i.e. P
a∩ P
b≠ φ, and element in this common factor is more, then it is larger to consult successful possibility.Otherwise, if student A is for logging in the Staffing System of certain company, then both sides to trust the common factor of rule just very little, it is little to consult successful possibility.
Example 6: user A carries out the operation of banking for logging in website of bank, but but logged on the website B that buys books mistakenly, so A proposes and B carries out trust negotiation.The trust rule held due to A is for website of bank, and the trust rule that B holds is for operation of buying books, they for be not one and consult target, therefore hold trust regular common factor must be very little.If now directly do not hold consultation to rule analysis, probably can consult failure, also can cause the mutual expense of unnecessary negotiation.The analysis of overlapping relation between regular collection is trusted if can carry out before negotiation, and it is very low to know negotiation success ratio according to analysis result, then suggestion is postponed even stopping consulting, such user A may find the problem of erroneous logons website thus, thus unnecessary negotiation failure can be avoided, reduce privacy and expose.
Compared with prior art, the invention has the advantages that:
1. present invention achieves the analysis consulting the set relations of trusting rule, draw the relation between rule;
2. namely the present invention analyzes before negotiation, can coach to Rulemaking and negotiations process;
3. complexity of the present invention is low, convenient operation.
4. the present invention can instruct the carrying out of negotiation, offers suggestions to negotiation.
The present invention from logical perspective, can also analyze the character of consulting to trust rule, provides suggestion further to the progress of negotiations process and the formulation of rule.
In addition, it should be noted that, unless stated otherwise or point out, otherwise the term " first " in instructions, " second ", " the 3rd " etc. describe only for distinguishing each assembly, element, step etc. in instructions, instead of for representing logical relation between each assembly, element, step or ordinal relation etc.
Be understandable that, although the present invention with preferred embodiment disclose as above, but above-described embodiment and be not used to limit the present invention.For any those of ordinary skill in the art, do not departing under technical solution of the present invention ambit, the technology contents of above-mentioned announcement all can be utilized to make many possible variations and modification to technical solution of the present invention, or be revised as the Equivalent embodiments of equivalent variations.Therefore, every content not departing from technical solution of the present invention, according to technical spirit of the present invention to any simple modification made for any of the above embodiments, equivalent variations and modification, all still belongs in the scope of technical solution of the present invention protection.
Claims (6)
1. consult the set relations analytical approach of trusting rule for one kind, it is characterized in that comprising: make to consult both sides and strictly take single step to consult, the set of certificates of wherein consulting the disposable disclosure of first party oneself in both sides, to the second party of consulting in both sides, consults the set of certificates of the disposable disclosure of second party oneself in both sides to the first party of consulting in both sides; Exist to belong in the certificate of the set of certificates of second party and the set of certificates of second party in the set of certificates of first party and exist when belonging to the certificate of the set of certificates of first party, judge to consult successfully.
2. according to claim 1ly consult the set relations analytical approach of trusting rule, it is characterized in that comprising: perform peer-to-peer analyzing and processing, relation of inclusion analyzing and processing and overlapping relation analyzing and processing for the set of certificates of the first party of consulting in both sides and the set of certificates of consulting the second party in both sides.
3. according to claim 1 and 2 negotiation trusts regular set relations analytical approach, it is characterized in that, in peer-to-peer analyzing and processing, if it is reciprocity that negotiation both sides trust rule set in set, then judge that consulting both sides possesses roughly the same basic with the negotiation of equilibrium.
4. according to claim 1 and 2 negotiation trusts regular set relations analytical approach, it is characterized in that, in peer-to-peer analyzing and processing, if the trust rule set consulting both sides is folk prescription equity in set, then the result making to consult to consult to obtain in either party and the 3rd negotiation side in both sides is all adopted by the opposing party consulted in both sides.
5. according to claim 1 and 2 negotiation trusts regular set relations analytical approach, it is characterized in that, in relation of inclusion analyzing and processing, if the trust rule of consulting a negotiation side in both sides comprises the trust rule of another the negotiation side consulted in both sides, then in negotiations process, make described negotiation side's disclosure rules supplementary set to another negotiation side, if another negotiation side meets the requirement of these rules and discloses relevant information, then judge to consult successfully.
6. according to claim 1 and 2ly consult the set relations analytical approach of trusting rule, it is characterized in that, in overlapping relation analyzing and processing, the common factor of trust rule consulting both sides is more, then judging to consult both sides, to consult successful possibility relatively large.
Priority Applications (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN201510782861.4A CN105468979A (en) | 2015-11-16 | 2015-11-16 | Aggregation relationship analysis method of negotiation trust rule |
Applications Claiming Priority (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN201510782861.4A CN105468979A (en) | 2015-11-16 | 2015-11-16 | Aggregation relationship analysis method of negotiation trust rule |
Publications (1)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| CN105468979A true CN105468979A (en) | 2016-04-06 |
Family
ID=55606665
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN201510782861.4A Pending CN105468979A (en) | 2015-11-16 | 2015-11-16 | Aggregation relationship analysis method of negotiation trust rule |
Country Status (1)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| CN (1) | CN105468979A (en) |
Cited By (2)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN108090803A (en) * | 2017-12-06 | 2018-05-29 | 上海电机学院 | A kind of negotiation degree of belief computational methods |
| CN108111488A (en) * | 2017-12-06 | 2018-06-01 | 上海电机学院 | A kind of dynamic threshold consulting tactical method |
-
2015
- 2015-11-16 CN CN201510782861.4A patent/CN105468979A/en active Pending
Cited By (3)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN108090803A (en) * | 2017-12-06 | 2018-05-29 | 上海电机学院 | A kind of negotiation degree of belief computational methods |
| CN108111488A (en) * | 2017-12-06 | 2018-06-01 | 上海电机学院 | A kind of dynamic threshold consulting tactical method |
| CN108111488B (en) * | 2017-12-06 | 2021-08-24 | 上海电机学院 | Dynamic threshold negotiation strategy method |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| Tama et al. | A critical review of blockchain and its current applications | |
| Olgun et al. | Pythagorean fuzzy topological spaces | |
| Chakraborty et al. | Application of graph theory in social media | |
| Lu et al. | High-order random walks and generalized laplacians on hypergraphs | |
| Selvachandran et al. | Complex vague soft sets and its distance measures | |
| Egghe | Good properties of similarity measures and their complementarity | |
| Alkhazaleh | n-Valued refined neutrosophic soft set theory | |
| Zararsız | Similarity measures of sequence of fuzzy numbers and fuzzy risk analysis | |
| Brandstädt et al. | Dominating induced matchings for P 7-free graphs in linear time | |
| Hellmeier et al. | A delimitation of data sovereignty from digital and technological sovereignty | |
| CN105468979A (en) | Aggregation relationship analysis method of negotiation trust rule | |
| Teixeira | Percolation and local isoperimetric inequalities | |
| Li et al. | Let’s CoRank: trust of users and tweets on social networks | |
| Horsley | Maximum packings of the complete graph with uniform length cycles | |
| Sjåfjell et al. | Corporate Purpose and the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Proposal | |
| Nakamoto et al. | Cyclic 4‐colorings of graphs on surfaces | |
| Ganie et al. | Some novel q‐rung orthopair fuzzy similarity measures and entropy measures with their applications | |
| Tyagi et al. | A comparative analysis of potential factors and impacts that affect blockchain technology in software: Based applications | |
| Ishaq et al. | Block Chain in the IoT industry: A Systematic Literature Review | |
| Poltavtseva et al. | Data protection in heterogeneous big data systems | |
| Zaltzman et al. | Vertex singularities associated with conical points for the 3D Laplace equation | |
| Bhaumik et al. | Using social network graphs for search space reduction in internet of things | |
| CN105429965A (en) | Conflict handling method of negotiation trust rule | |
| CN105469146A (en) | Negotiation trust rule conflict detection method | |
| Bud | Maximal gonality on strata of differentials and uniruledness of strata in low genus |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| C06 | Publication | ||
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| C10 | Entry into substantive examination | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination | ||
| WD01 | Invention patent application deemed withdrawn after publication |
Application publication date: 20160406 |
|
| WD01 | Invention patent application deemed withdrawn after publication |