Model-based joint analysis of safety and security:Survey and identification of gaps

IF 13.3 1区 计算机科学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Stefano M. Nicoletti , Marijn Peppelman , Christina Kolb , Mariëlle Stoelinga
{"title":"Model-based joint analysis of safety and security:Survey and identification of gaps","authors":"Stefano M. Nicoletti ,&nbsp;Marijn Peppelman ,&nbsp;Christina Kolb ,&nbsp;Mariëlle Stoelinga","doi":"10.1016/j.cosrev.2023.100597","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>We survey the state-of-the-art on model-based formalisms for safety and security joint analysis, where safety refers to the absence of unintended failures, and security to absence of malicious attacks. We conduct a thorough literature review and – as a result – we consider fourteen model-based formalisms and compare them with respect to several criteria: (1) <em>Modeling capabilities and Expressiveness:</em> which phenomena can be expressed in these formalisms? To which extent can they capture safety-security interactions? (2) <em>Analytical capabilities:</em> which analysis types are supported? (3) <em>Practical applicability:</em> to what extent have the formalisms been used to analyze small or larger case studies? Furthermore, (1) we present more precise definitions for safety-security dependencies in tree-like formalisms; (2) we showcase the potential of each formalism by modeling the same toy example from the literature and (3) we present our findings and reflect on possible ways to narrow highlighted gaps. In summary, our key findings are the following: (1) the majority of approaches combine tree-like formal models; (2) the exact nature of safety-security interaction is still ill-understood and (3) diverse formalisms can capture different interactions; (4) analyzed formalisms merge modeling constructs from existing safety- and security-specific formalisms, without introducing <em>ad hoc</em> constructs to model safety-security interactions, or (5) metrics to analyze trade offs. Moreover, (6) large case studies representing safety-security interactions are still missing.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48633,"journal":{"name":"Computer Science Review","volume":"50 ","pages":"Article 100597"},"PeriodicalIF":13.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1574013723000643/pdfft?md5=e6c1bf928918e2a341e966fad8babde0&pid=1-s2.0-S1574013723000643-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computer Science Review","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1574013723000643","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We survey the state-of-the-art on model-based formalisms for safety and security joint analysis, where safety refers to the absence of unintended failures, and security to absence of malicious attacks. We conduct a thorough literature review and – as a result – we consider fourteen model-based formalisms and compare them with respect to several criteria: (1) Modeling capabilities and Expressiveness: which phenomena can be expressed in these formalisms? To which extent can they capture safety-security interactions? (2) Analytical capabilities: which analysis types are supported? (3) Practical applicability: to what extent have the formalisms been used to analyze small or larger case studies? Furthermore, (1) we present more precise definitions for safety-security dependencies in tree-like formalisms; (2) we showcase the potential of each formalism by modeling the same toy example from the literature and (3) we present our findings and reflect on possible ways to narrow highlighted gaps. In summary, our key findings are the following: (1) the majority of approaches combine tree-like formal models; (2) the exact nature of safety-security interaction is still ill-understood and (3) diverse formalisms can capture different interactions; (4) analyzed formalisms merge modeling constructs from existing safety- and security-specific formalisms, without introducing ad hoc constructs to model safety-security interactions, or (5) metrics to analyze trade offs. Moreover, (6) large case studies representing safety-security interactions are still missing.

基于模型的安全和安保联合分析:差距调查和识别
我们调查了用于安全和安全联合分析的基于模型的形式主义的最新技术,其中安全是指没有意外故障,安全是指不存在恶意攻击。我们进行了全面的文献综述,因此,我们考虑了14种基于模型的形式主义,并根据几个标准对其进行了比较:(1)建模能力和表达能力:哪些现象可以用这些形式主义来表达?他们能在多大程度上捕捉安全保障互动?(2) 分析功能:支持哪些分析类型?(3) 实际适用性:形式主义在多大程度上被用于分析小型或大型案例研究?此外,(1)我们在树状形式主义中给出了安全-安全依赖性的更精确定义;(2) 我们通过对文献中相同的玩具示例进行建模,展示了每种形式主义的潜力。(3)我们展示了我们的发现,并反思了缩小突出差距的可能方法。总之,我们的主要发现如下:(1)大多数方法结合了树状形式模型;(2) 安全-安保互动的确切性质仍不清楚,(3)不同的形式主义可以捕捉不同的互动;(4) 分析的形式主义合并了现有安全和安全特定形式主义的建模构造,而没有引入特殊构造来建模安全-安全交互,或者(5)分析权衡的度量。此外,(6)代表安全-安保互动的大型案例研究仍然缺失。
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
Computer Science Review
Computer Science Review Computer Science-General Computer Science
CiteScore
32.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
51 days
期刊介绍: Computer Science Review, a publication dedicated to research surveys and expository overviews of open problems in computer science, targets a broad audience within the field seeking comprehensive insights into the latest developments. The journal welcomes articles from various fields as long as their content impacts the advancement of computer science. In particular, articles that review the application of well-known Computer Science methods to other areas are in scope only if these articles advance the fundamental understanding of those methods.
×
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