## General Overview

• When: Thursday, October 3 in class.
• How: Closed book, closed notes
I will provide you with copies of the following figures from the text:
• Figure 2.1 (evaluation semantics)
• Figure 3.1 (logical rules)
• Figure 3.2 (common tautologies)
• Figure 3.5 (useful derived rules)
• Coverage:
• Access-control logic, including:
• Principal expressions: simple principal names, plus compound principals P&Q, P|Q
• Statements of the logic, including: P says phi, P => Q, P controls phi
• Semantics of the logic, using Kripke structures
• Inference rules of the logic
• Formal proofs *in* the logic
• Meta proofs *about* the logic (e.g., soundness proofs)
• Short version: Chapters 1-3 of the textbook (everything through HW 4, but not including tickets/ACLs)

• ## Types of Questions You Should Expect

Note: I don't promise to ask only the following sorts of questions. However, if you can answer these sorts of questions, you should be in good shape.

• When given a Kripke structure and a specific formula, you should be able to determine the set of worlds in which that formula is true.
• When given a formula in the access-control logic, you should be able to give a Kripke structure (with non-empty W, I and J) that satisfies (i.e., models) it. Likewise, you should be able to give a Kripke structure that does not satisfy it.
• When given an axiom or inference rule in the access-control logic (or a proposed rule that is sound), you should be able to prove its soundness in the underlying Kripke model.
• When given a proposed axiom or inference rule that is not sound, you should be able to construct a particular Kripke structure and instance of the rule that demonstrates its lack of soundness.
• When given a set of premises and a desired conclusion that logically follows from those premise, you should be able to construct a formal proof using the inference rulesof the access-control logic.

• ## For Some Practice

The 2011 exam, and some sample solutions

### The Aftermath:

The exam itself, plus sample solutions