Stefano M. Nicoletti , Marijn Peppelman , Christina Kolb , Mariëlle Stoelinga
{"title":"基于模型的安全和安保联合分析:差距调查和识别","authors":"Stefano M. Nicoletti , Marijn Peppelman , Christina Kolb , 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":"{\"title\":\"Model-based joint analysis of safety and security:Survey and identification of gaps\",\"authors\":\"Stefano M. Nicoletti , Marijn Peppelman , Christina Kolb , 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}","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}
Model-based joint analysis of safety and security:Survey and identification of gaps
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.
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.