An Analysis and Evaluation of Security Aspects in the Business Process Model and Notation

Maria Leitner, Michelle Miller, S. Rinderle-Ma
{"title":"An Analysis and Evaluation of Security Aspects in the Business Process Model and Notation","authors":"Maria Leitner, Michelle Miller, S. Rinderle-Ma","doi":"10.1109/ARES.2013.34","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Enhancing existing business process modeling languages with security concepts has attracted increased attention in research and several graphical notations and symbols have been proposed. How these extensions can be comprehended by users has not been evaluated yet. However, the comprehensibility of security concepts integrated within business process models is of utmost importance for many purposes such as communication, training, and later automation within a process-aware information system. If users do not understand the security concepts, this might lead to restricted acceptance or even misinterpretation and possible security problems in the sequel. In this paper, we evaluate existing security extensions of Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) as BPMN constitutes the de facto standard in business modeling languages nowadays. The evaluation is conducted along two lines, i.e., a literature study and a survey. The findings of both evaluations identify shortcomings and open questions of existing approaches. This will yield the basis to convey security-related information within business process models in a comprehensible way and consequently, unleash the full effects of security modeling in business processes.","PeriodicalId":302747,"journal":{"name":"2013 International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"30","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2013 International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ARES.2013.34","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 30

Abstract

Enhancing existing business process modeling languages with security concepts has attracted increased attention in research and several graphical notations and symbols have been proposed. How these extensions can be comprehended by users has not been evaluated yet. However, the comprehensibility of security concepts integrated within business process models is of utmost importance for many purposes such as communication, training, and later automation within a process-aware information system. If users do not understand the security concepts, this might lead to restricted acceptance or even misinterpretation and possible security problems in the sequel. In this paper, we evaluate existing security extensions of Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) as BPMN constitutes the de facto standard in business modeling languages nowadays. The evaluation is conducted along two lines, i.e., a literature study and a survey. The findings of both evaluations identify shortcomings and open questions of existing approaches. This will yield the basis to convey security-related information within business process models in a comprehensible way and consequently, unleash the full effects of security modeling in business processes.
业务流程模型和符号中安全方面的分析与评价
利用安全概念增强现有的业务流程建模语言已经引起了越来越多的研究关注,并且已经提出了几种图形表示和符号。用户如何理解这些扩展还没有得到评估。然而,集成在业务流程模型中的安全概念的可理解性对于许多目的至关重要,例如在流程感知的信息系统中进行通信、培训和以后的自动化。如果用户不理解安全概念,这可能会导致接受受限甚至误解,并可能在续作中出现安全问题。在本文中,我们评估了业务流程模型和符号(BPMN)的现有安全扩展,因为BPMN构成了当今业务建模语言的事实上的标准。本研究采用文献研究法和调查法两种方法进行评价。两项评价的结果都指出了现有办法的缺点和悬而未决的问题。这将产生以可理解的方式在业务流程模型中传递安全相关信息的基础,从而释放业务流程中安全建模的全部效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信