D.3.3 ALGORITHMS FOR INCREMENTAL ... - SecureChange

Recommendations

Info

2 Orchestrating Security and System Engineering processes This section presents an industrial security engineering process where the risk engineering process which has been standardized independently can be orchestrated into the overall system engineering process. The need of an orchestrated process is pointed in international standards like ISO/IEC 15288:2008 and ISO/IEC 12207:2008 [16, 17]. These standards describe the system and software life cycle of the engineering process and including clauses mentioning that non-functional properties such as security should be considered in different phases. In security specialty engineering, risk analysis methodologies such as EBIOS, CORAS or CRAMM give the rationale for security requirements and assess the risks in an exhaustive way, as needed in domains such as administration or military systems. The risk management process does not cover the entire security engineering activities but is a key starting point to them. Figura 1. ISO/IEC 12207 vs EBIOS process Thus a first issue is to show how the risk management process and security requirement analysis can collaborate with the global system engineering process described in those engineering standards. The difficulty resides in the necessary iterations needed to refine the security requirements since some vulnerabilities and risks will appear only once the system architectural design has been set up. In particular we investigate how the processes Stakeholder Requirements Definition (Clause 6.4.1), Requirements Analysis (Clause 6.4.2), and Architectural Design <strong>D.3.3</strong> Algorithms for Incremental Requirements Models Evaluation and Transformation| version 1.19 | page 8/136
(Clause 6.4.3) processes of ISO/IEC 12207 can be orchestrated with EBIOS risk methodology activities (see Figure 1). Figure 2.ISO/IEC 12207 sub-set of processes and EBIOS collaboration diagram The resulting orchestrated process is represented in Figure 2.The stakeholder relationship1 technical manager gets the needs and requirements from the stakeholders (Clause 6.4.1). He pushes the information related to security needs to the security risk manager who expresses the unwanted damages and defines the first security objectives. The stakeholder relationship technical manager validates the security objectives with the stakeholders and consolidates them before sending them to the requirement manager. Then the requirement manager consolidates them with requirements from other stakeholders and sends all the requirements to the system designer. The system designer analyzes the requirements (Clause 6.4.2) and defines the functions of the system. Once this is done, the security risk manager updates the essential elements (Activity 1) based on the functions of the system, updates the damages (Activity 2), adds some security objectives (Activity 8), defines first security requirements (Activity 9) and sends them to the system designer and to the requirement manager. The system designer validates the requirements analysis with the design authority who propagates it. The system designer proceeds to architectural design of the system, allocating functions to elements of the system (Clause 6.4.3). This new organization of the model of the system is analyzed by the security risk manager who evaluates carefully the risks and defines security solutions (Activities 3 to 10), and sends the updates of the 1 The stakeholder relationship manager in the majority of requirement engineering framework is called requirement manager <strong>D.3.3</strong> Algorithms for Incremental Requirements Models Evaluation and Transformation| version 1.19 | page 9/136
Page 1 and 2: D.3.3 ALGORITHMS FOR INCREMENTAL RE
Page 3 and 4: 1.14 19 January Final 1.15 23 Janua
Page 5 and 6: Index DOCUMENT INFORMATION 1 DOCUME
Page 7: 1 Introduction This deliverable pre
Page 11 and 12: 3 Orchestrating Requirements and Ri
Page 13 and 14: grey. The ADS-B introduction requir
Page 15 and 16: The security risk manager identifie
Page 17 and 18: are supported by the argumentation
Page 19 and 20: ADS-B Manage ADS-B signal ADS-B sig
Page 21 and 22: the stagnation suite (i.e. obsolete
Page 23 and 24: 5 A framework for modeling and reas
Page 25 and 26: sectors. And there is 42% of probab
Page 27 and 28: SDA(C) = {DA 2 , DA 4 , DA 8 , DA 1
Page 29 and 30: application contexts is saved if th
Page 31 and 32: Figure 14. ATM model state after qu
Page 33 and 34: References [1] Yudis Asnar, Fabio M
Page 35 and 36: Managing Changes with Legacy Securi
Page 37 and 38: Failure in the provisioning of corr
Page 39 and 40: propagated to the system designer a
Page 41 and 42: APPENDIX B D.3.3 Algorithms for Inc
Page 43 and 44: is sometimes difficult, especially
Page 45 and 46: Tactical Monitor air R controller t
Page 47 and 48: protected from harm. Since in CORAS
Page 49 and 50: CModel. The postcondtion checks the
Page 51 and 52: of ADS-B signal and Availability of
Page 53 and 54: extensions to i* to model and analy
Page 55 and 56: 3. Bzivin, J., Dup, G., Jouault, F.
Page 57 and 58: APPENDIX C D.3.3 Algorithms for Inc
Page 59 and 60:
steps. Section V demonstrates the R
Page 61 and 62:
that should be mitigated by the sys
Page 63 and 64:
CPU value PINconfirmed(PIN, card-de
Page 65 and 66:
TABLE IV PRIORITIZATION OF RISKS FO
Page 67 and 68:
context. We believe that the Common
Page 69 and 70:
Managing Evolution by Orchestrating
Page 71 and 72:
1.1 The Contribution of this Paper
Page 73 and 74:
Fig. 3. Integrated Change Managemen
Page 75 and 76:
The requirement analysis is an iter
Page 77 and 78:
Table 1. Conceptual Interface Requi
Page 79 and 80:
Legend: Goals surrounded by dashed
Page 81 and 82:
Table 5. Test Suite for GP-2.2 Tran
Page 83 and 84:
6. P. K. Chittimalli and M. J. Harr
Page 85 and 86:
Noname manuscript No. (will be inse
Page 87 and 88:
Dealing with Known Unknowns: A Goal
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Understanding How to Manage Require
Page 115 and 116:
Chatzoglou et al. [4] conducted a s
Page 117 and 118:
Evolution Elicitation Probability E
Page 119 and 120:
Table 2. Participants Background Pa
Page 121 and 122:
for the defined success criteria. O
Page 123 and 124:
Fig. 3. Codes Coverage ATM systems,
Page 125 and 126:
The feedbacks provided by the ATM e
Page 127 and 128:
3. P. Carlshamre, K. Sandahl, M. Li
Page 129 and 130:
Quick fix generation for DSMLs Ábe
Page 131 and 132:
• extensibility: the supported li
Page 133 and 134:
Fig. 7. Overview of the Quick fix g
Page 135 and 136:
Fig. 9. Evaluation results (|V(M I
show all

D.3.3 ALGORITHMS FOR INCREMENTAL ... - SecureChange

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?