6th European Conference - Academic Conferences

Labelling: Security in Information Management and
Sharing
Harm Schotanus, Tim Hartog, Hiddo Hut and Daniel Boonstra
TNO Information and Communication Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
Harm.schotanus@tno.nl
Tim.hartog@tno.nl
Hiddo.hut@tno.nl
Daniel.boonstra@tno.nl
Abstract: Military communication infrastructures are often deployed as stand-alone information systems
operating at the System High mode. Network-Enabled Capabilities (NEC) and combined military operations lead
to new requirements for information management and sharing which current communication architectures cannot
deliver. This paper informs information architects and security specialists about an incremental approach
introducing labelling of documents by users to facilitate information management and sharing in security related
military scenarios.
Keywords: labelling, meta-information, information security, cross-domain solutions, information sharing, needto-protect,
duty-to-share
1. Introduction
This paper presents an overview of the steps to develop a meta-information capability. First, it
presents a broad overview on what meta-information and labelling is and how it can be applied. Then
it focuses on one specific security application of labelling which is secure information exchange, i.e.
selective and regulated information sharing, based on meta-information. We also present a possible
roadmap for implementing a secure information sharing capability based on meta-information. The
purpose of this roadmap is to analyse what ‘ingredients’ are required for implementing such a
capability, i.e. the problems we have identified and the technology that is necessary to solve these
problems.
The importance of sharing information in networked military operations, especially coalition networks,
is commonly recognised. An important driver for future communication architectures is (NATO)
Network-Enabled Capabilities (NNEC)(Buckman 2005). The integrated and coordinated deployment
of all capabilities within a coalition is the central goal relying heavily upon regulated information
sharing (Schotanus 2009)(Martis 2006). Better integrated communication architecture contributes to
sharing of relevant military information by making it easier and quicker. But how does confidentiality fit
into this picture? What if a coalition partner does not want to share specific information because
sharing poses a bigger risk for them or for the mission than not sharing or vice versa? Which methods
are available to differentiate between information to-be-shared and information not-to-be-shared? The
primary objective is that the owner of the information remains in control of that information.
Relevant information produced during military coalition operations usually does not originate from a
single partner but is the result of multiple partners working together using some form of online or
offline shared information mechanism like documents distributed via e-mail or digital photos shared
via situational awareness applications. Information is nowadays typically divided amongst the coalition
partners, each creating a separate information domain in which the information is stored and
processed. Such an information domain is usually a standalone network. Transferring information
from one domain is handled often by out-of-band means That may cause more problems than it
solves as there is little control over the information exchange. Connecting these different domains is a
step that is currently taken, but also leads to many problems. Not in the least because of different
responsibilities for each of these domains. Information sharing without compromising the
confidentiality is a problem that has to be solved by choosing an information management strategy
that is based on the ability to regulate the sharing of information and that cannot be addressed by
infrastructural solutions. In essence, this is caused by the inability of the infrastructure to determine
the value of the information and hence it cannot enforce decisions about whether information can or
cannot be shared with the intended partner.
228