A Comparison of Trust Models

Marc Sel

A Comparison of Trust Models

Marc Sel

Department of Information Security

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference contribution

Abstract

This article presents a comparative study of trust models, a term often used without a well-defined specification. Nevertheless, most automated enterprise processes rely on it. Examples include Automated Border Control gates, e-Government systems such as Tax-On-Web, electronic banking and money transfer and many more. We first present a short introduction to trust models. We then propose key terms to describe how trust can be established, and illustrate how these terms can be applied. Finally we compare the trust models created by ICAO PKD, EU eIDAS, US FICAM and Bitcoin, and present a conclusion.

Original language	English
Title of host publication	ISSE 2015
Subtitle of host publication	Highlights of the Information Security Solutions Europe 2015 Conference
Editors	Norbert Pohlmann, Helmut Reimer, Wolfgang Schneider
Publisher	Springer-Verlag
Pages	206-215
Number of pages	10
ISBN (Electronic)	978-3-658-10934-9
ISBN (Print)	978-3-658-10933-2
Publication status	Published - 15 Sept 2015

Keywords

trust
pki
Identity Management Systems

Access to Document

https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783658109332

Cite this

@inproceedings{a1234671e1ee447f9113f563738eb314,

title = "A Comparison of Trust Models",

abstract = "This article presents a comparative study of trust models, a term often used without a well-defined specification. Nevertheless, most automated enterprise processes rely on it. Examples include Automated Border Control gates, e-Government systems such as Tax-On-Web, electronic banking and money transfer and many more. We first present a short introduction to trust models. We then propose key terms to describe how trust can be established, and illustrate how these terms can be applied. Finally we compare the trust models created by ICAO PKD, EU eIDAS, US FICAM and Bitcoin, and present a conclusion.",

keywords = "trust, pki, Identity Management Systems",

author = "Marc Sel",

year = "2015",

month = sep,

day = "15",

language = "English",

isbn = "978-3-658-10933-2",

pages = "206--215",

editor = "Norbert Pohlmann and Reimer, {Helmut } and Wolfgang Schneider",

booktitle = "ISSE 2015",

publisher = "Springer-Verlag",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - A Comparison of Trust Models

AU - Sel, Marc

PY - 2015/9/15

Y1 - 2015/9/15

N2 - This article presents a comparative study of trust models, a term often used without a well-defined specification. Nevertheless, most automated enterprise processes rely on it. Examples include Automated Border Control gates, e-Government systems such as Tax-On-Web, electronic banking and money transfer and many more. We first present a short introduction to trust models. We then propose key terms to describe how trust can be established, and illustrate how these terms can be applied. Finally we compare the trust models created by ICAO PKD, EU eIDAS, US FICAM and Bitcoin, and present a conclusion.

AB - This article presents a comparative study of trust models, a term often used without a well-defined specification. Nevertheless, most automated enterprise processes rely on it. Examples include Automated Border Control gates, e-Government systems such as Tax-On-Web, electronic banking and money transfer and many more. We first present a short introduction to trust models. We then propose key terms to describe how trust can be established, and illustrate how these terms can be applied. Finally we compare the trust models created by ICAO PKD, EU eIDAS, US FICAM and Bitcoin, and present a conclusion.

KW - trust

KW - pki

KW - Identity Management Systems

UR - https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783658109332

M3 - Conference contribution

SN - 978-3-658-10933-2

SP - 206

EP - 215

BT - ISSE 2015

A2 - Pohlmann, Norbert

A2 - Reimer, Helmut

A2 - Schneider, Wolfgang

PB - Springer-Verlag

ER -

A Comparison of Trust Models

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Automating the evaluation of trustworthiness

Cite this