When Does Authorization End? Effect Closure at Provider Boundaries
The paper formalises 'effect closure' — the risk that authorised work continues producing policy-violating effects after revocation — exposing a subtle gap in distributed-system access control that provider contracts alone do not resolve.
Summary written by editorial AI · Source link below
arXiv:2609.02866v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Revocation completion, clean state, or operation success can leave authorized work able to cause an effect the application rejects while the provider stays within its contract. We call the absence of all such paths policy-relative effect closure, or effect closure for short. Thus, a grant is closed when its existing authorizations retain no such path, and it cannot issue any new ones. We present EFFECTBOUND, which uses an evidence-supported fini
Editorial Analysis
Incomplete revocation effects in distributed systems can leave residual authority active across provider boundaries — a risk amplified by multi-cloud and microservice architectures.
Review authorization revocation flows in multi-provider architectures for residual-effect gaps, especially at cloud-provider boundaries.
Forward-looking interpretation drafted by editorial AI under human review — not a reproduction of the source. See methodology.
External link — opens at arXiv Crypto & Security in a new tab.
More from the Research Desk
- 39 New Methods That Compromise Passkey Authentication3d
- Security Vulnerability in a Voting System3d
- Selfie-Capture Dynamics as an Auxiliary Signal Against Deepfakes and Injection Attacks for Mobile Identity Verification4d
- How Reliable Is the Multi-Input Heuristic for Bitcoin Address Clustering in Law Enforcement Contexts?4d
- Privacy Leakage in Federated Learning: Gradient-Based Client Identity Inference and Defenses for Inertial Sensing in Vehicular Edge Networks4d