Risk and argument: A risk-based argumentation method for practical security

V. N. Franqueira, T. Tun, Y. Yu, R. Wieringa, B. Nuseibeh
{"title":"Risk and argument: A risk-based argumentation method for practical security","authors":"V. N. Franqueira, T. Tun, Y. Yu, R. Wieringa, B. Nuseibeh","doi":"10.1109/RE.2011.6051659","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When showing that a software system meets certain security requirements, it is often necessary to work with formal and informal descriptions of the system behavior, vulnerabilities, and threats from potential attackers. In earlier work, Haley et al. [1] showed structured argumentation could deal with such mixed descriptions. However, incomplete and uncertain information, and limited resources force practitioners to settle for good-enough security. To deal with these conditions of practice, we extend the method of Haley et al. with risk assessment. The proposed method, RISA (RIsk assessment in Security Argumentation), uses public catalogs of security expertise to support the risk assessment, and to guide the security argumentation in identifying rebuttals and mitigations for security requirements satisfaction. We illustrate RISA with a realistic example of PIN Entry Device.","PeriodicalId":385129,"journal":{"name":"2011 IEEE 19th International Requirements Engineering Conference","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"60","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2011 IEEE 19th International Requirements Engineering Conference","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2011.6051659","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 60

Abstract

When showing that a software system meets certain security requirements, it is often necessary to work with formal and informal descriptions of the system behavior, vulnerabilities, and threats from potential attackers. In earlier work, Haley et al. [1] showed structured argumentation could deal with such mixed descriptions. However, incomplete and uncertain information, and limited resources force practitioners to settle for good-enough security. To deal with these conditions of practice, we extend the method of Haley et al. with risk assessment. The proposed method, RISA (RIsk assessment in Security Argumentation), uses public catalogs of security expertise to support the risk assessment, and to guide the security argumentation in identifying rebuttals and mitigations for security requirements satisfaction. We illustrate RISA with a realistic example of PIN Entry Device.
风险与论证:一种基于风险的实际安全论证方法
当显示软件系统满足某些安全需求时,通常需要处理系统行为、漏洞和来自潜在攻击者的威胁的正式和非正式描述。在早期的工作中,Haley等人[1]表明结构化论证可以处理这种混合描述。然而,不完整和不确定的信息以及有限的资源迫使从业者满足于足够好的安全性。为了应对这些实践条件,我们将Haley等人的方法扩展为风险评估。提出的方法RISA(安全论证中的风险评估)使用安全专家的公共目录来支持风险评估,并指导安全论证,以确定满足安全需求的反驳和缓解措施。我们用一个PIN输入设备的实际例子来说明RISA。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信