Papers › Model Checking Access Control Policies: A Case Study using Google Cloud IAM
Model Checking Access Control Policies: A Case Study using Google Cloud IAM
Antonios Gouglidis, Anna Kagia, Vincent C. Hu
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Authoring access control policies is challenging and prone to misconfigurations. Access control policies must be conflict-free. Hence, administrators should identify discrepancies between policy specifications and their intended function to avoid violating security principles. This paper aims to demonstrate how to formally verify access control policies. Model checking is used to verify access control properties against policies supported by an access control model. The authors consider Google's Cloud Identity and Access Management (IAM) as a case study and follow NIST's guidelines to verify access control policies automatically. Automated verification using model checking can serve as a valuable tool and assist administrators in assessing the correctness of access control policies. This enables checking violations against security principles and performing security assessments of policies for compliance purposes. The authors demonstrate how to define Google's IAM underlying role-based access control (RBAC) model, specify its supported policies, and formally verify a set of properties through three examples.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections