A mechanism for information flow control is one that enforces information flow policies. Several methods to enforce information flow policies have been proposed. Run-time mechanisms that tag data with information flow labels have been employed at the operating system level and at the programming language level. Static program analyses have also been developed that ensure information flows within programs are in accordance with policies.
Both static and dynamic analysis for current programming languages have been developed. However, dynamic analysis cannot be sound as noninterference is a property concerning all execution paths.
A prominent way to enforce information flow policies in a program is through a security type system: that is, a type system that enforces security properties. In such a sound type system, if a program type-checks, it meets the flow policy and therefore contains no improper information flows.
Read more about this topic: Information Flow (information Theory)
Famous quotes containing the words information, flow and/or control:
“If you have any information or evidence regarding the O.J. Simpson case, press 2 now. If you are an expert in fields relating to the O.J. Simpson case and would like to offer your services, press 3 now. If you would like the address where you can send a letter of support to O.J. Simpson, press 1 now. If you are seeking legal representation from the law offices of Robert L. Shapiro, press 4 now.”
—Advertisement. Aired August 8, 1994 by Tom Snyder on TV station CNBC. Chicago Sun Times, p. 11 (July 24, 1994)
“Parents ought, through their own behavior and the values by which they live, to provide direction for their children. But they need to rid themselves of the idea that there are surefire methods which, when well applied, will produce certain predictable results. Whatever we do with and for our children ought to flow from our understanding of and our feelings for the particular situation and the relation we wish to exist between us and our child.”
—Bruno Bettelheim (20th century)
“If someone does something we disapprove of, we regard him as bad if we believe we can deter him from persisting in his conduct, but we regard him as mad if we believe we cannot. In either case, the crucial issue is our control of the other: the more we lose control over him, and the more he assumes control over himself, the more, in case of conflict, we are likely to consider him mad rather than just bad.”
—Thomas Szasz (b. 1920)