Skip to main content

TrUStAPIS: a trust requirements elicitation method for IoT

Abstract

The internet of things (IoT) is an environment of interconnected entities, which are identifiable, usable and controllable via the Internet. Trust is useful for a system such as the IoT as the entities involved would like to know how the other entities they have to interact with are going to perform. When developing an IoT entity, it will be desirable to guarantee trust during its whole life cycle. Trust domain is strongly dependent on other domains such as security and privacy. To consider these domains as a whole and to elicit the right requirements since the first phases of the system development life cycle is a key point when developing an IoT entity. This paper presents a requirements elicitation method focusing on trust plus other domains such as security, privacy and usability that increase the trust level of the IoT entity developed. To help the developers to elicit the requirements, we propose a JavaScript notation object template containing all the key elements that must be taken into consideration. We emphasize on the importance of the concept of traceability. This property permits to connect all the elicited requirements guaranteeing more control on the whole requirements engineering process.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://www.json.org.

  2. 2.

    https://www.java.com.

  3. 3.

    http://www.zigbee.org/.

  4. 4.

    http://www.z-wave.com/.

  5. 5.

    https://gdpr-info.eu/.

  6. 6.

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/safety.

References

  1. 1.

    Roman, R., Najera, P., Lopez, J.: Securing the internet of things. Computer 44(9), 51–58 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Fernandez-Gago, C., Moyano, F., Lopez, J.: Modelling trust dynamics in the internet of things. Inf. Sci. 396, 72–82 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.02.039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Haskins, C., Forsberg, K., Krueger, M., Walden, D., Hamelin, D.: Systems engineering handbook, INCOSE (2006)

  4. 4.

    Mellado, D., Blanco, C., Sanchez, L.E., Fernandez-Medina, E.: A systematic review of security requirements engineering. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 32(4), 153–165 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J.: Tropos: an agent-oriented software development methodology. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 8(3), 203–236 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Massacci, F., Mylopoulos, J., Zannone, N.: Security requirements engineering: the SI* modeling language and the secure tropos methodology. In: Advances in Intelligent Information Systems. Springer, Berlin, pp. 147–174 (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Mouratidis, H., Giorgini, P.: Secure tropos: a security-oriented extension of the tropos methodology. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 17(02), 285–309 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Yu, E.S.-K.: Modelling strategic relationships for process reengineering, Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto (1995)

  9. 9.

    Paja, E., Dalpiaz, F., Giorgini, P.: Modelling and reasoning about security requirements in socio-technical systems. Data Knowl. Eng. 98, 123–143 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Hoffman, L.J., Lawson-Jenkins, K., Blum, J.: Trust beyond security: an expanded trust model. Commun. ACM 49(7), 94–101 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Pavlidis, M.: Designing for trust. CAiSE (Doctoral Consortium), pp. 3–14 (2011)

  12. 12.

    Rios, R., Fernandez-Gago, C., Lopez, J.: Modelling privacy-aware trust negotiations. Comput. Secur. (2017)

  13. 13.

    Ferraris, D., Fernandez-Gago, C., Lopez, J.: A trust by design framework for the internet of things. In: NTMS’2018—Security Track (NTMS 2018 Security Track). France, Paris (2018)

  14. 14.

    Yan, Z., Zhang, P., Vasilakos, A.V.: A survey on trust management for internet of things. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 42, 120–134 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Jøsang, A., Ismail, R., Boyd, C.: A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decis. Support Syst. 43(2), 618–644 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    McKnight, D.H., Chervany, N.L.: The meanings of trust. Technical Report MISRC Working Paper Series 96-04 (1996)

  17. 17.

    Baharuddin, R., Singh, D., Razali, R.: Usability dimensions for mobile applications: a review. Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 5(6), 2225–2231 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Mahalle, P., Babar, S., Prasad, N. R., Prasad, R.: Identity management framework towards internet of things (IoT): roadmap and key challenges. In: International Conference on Network Security and Applications, Springer, Berlin, pp. 430–439 (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Rios, R., Fernandez-Gago, C., Lopez, J.: Privacy-aware trust negotiation. In: International Workshop on Security and Trust Management. Springer, Berlin, pp. 98–105 (2016)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Mavropoulos, O., Mouratidis, H., Fish, A., Panaousis, E., Kalloniatis, C.: Apparatus: reasoning about security requirements in the internet of things. In: International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Springer, Berlin, pp. 219–230 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    IEEE Computer Society: Software Engineering Standards Committee. IEEE-SA Standards Board. IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specifications. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (1998)

  22. 22.

    Alonso-Nogueira, A., Estevez-Fernandez, H., Garcia, I.: Jrem: an approach for formalising models in the requirements phase with JSON and NoSQL databases. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. Int. J. Comput. Electr. Autom. Control Inf. Eng. 11(3), 353–358 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Abdelghani, W., Zayani, C. A., Amous, I., Sedes, F.: Trust management in social internet of things: a survey. In: Conference on e-Business, e-Services and e-Society. Springer, Berlin, pp. 430–441 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Beth, T., Borcherding, M., Klein, B.: Valuation of trust in open networks. In: European Symposium on Research in Computer Security. Springer, Berlin, pp. 1–18 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Chang, J., Wang, H., Gang, Y.: A dynamic trust metric for p2p systems. In: 2006 Fifth International Conference on Grid and Cooperative Computing Workshops, IEEE, pp. 117–120 (2006)

  26. 26.

    Christianson, B., Harbison, W. S.: Why isn’t trust transitive? In: International Workshop on Security Protocols. Springer, Berlin, pp. 171–176 (1996)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Grandison, T., Sloman, M.: A survey of trust in internet applications. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 3(4), 2–16 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Marsh, S.P.: Formalising trust as a computational concept, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computing Science and Mathematics, University of Stirling (1994)

  29. 29.

    Nitti, M., Girau, R., Atzori, L.: Trustworthiness management in the social internet of things. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 26(5), 1253–1266 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Yan, Z., Holtmanns, S.: Trust modeling and management: from social trust to digital trust. IGI Global, pp. 290–323 (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Mahmoud, R., Yousuf, T., Aloul, F., Zualkernan, I.: Internet of things (IoT) security: current status, challenges and prospective measures. In: 2015 10th International Conference for Internet Technology and Secured Transactions (ICITST), pp. 336–341 (2015)

  32. 32.

    Farooq, M.U., Waseem, M., Khairi, A., Mazhar, S.: A critical analysis on the security concerns of internet of things (IoT). Int. J. Comput. Appl. 111(7), 1–6 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Bauer, M., Boussard, M., Bui, N., De Loof, J., Magerkurth, C., Meissner, S., Walewski, J.W.: IoT reference architecture. In: Enabling Things to Talk, pp. 163–211. Springer, Berlin (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Pfitzmann, A., Hansen, M.: A terminology for talking about privacy by data minimization: anonymity, unlinkability, undetectability, unobservability, pseudonymity, and identity management (2010)

  35. 35.

    Ligett, K., Neel, S., Roth, A., Waggoner, B., Wu, S.Z.: Accuracy first: selecting a differential privacy level for accuracy constrained erm. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 2566–2576 (2017)

  36. 36.

    Lesk, M.: Safety risks-human error or mechanical failure?: Lessons from railways. IEEE Secur. Priv. 13(2), 99–102 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Singh, S., Singh, N.: Internet of things (IoT): security challenges, business opportunities and reference architecture for E-commerce. In: 2015 International Conference on Green Computing and Internet of Things (ICGCIoT), pp. 1577–1581 (2015)

  38. 38.

    Gou, Q., Yan, L., Liu, Y., Li, Y.: Construction and strategies in IoT security system. In: 2013 IEEE International Conference on Green Computing and Communications and IEEE Internet of Things and IEEE Cyber, Physical and Social Computing (pp. 1129–1132) (2013)

  39. 39.

    Ferraris, D., Fernandez-Gago, C., Daniel, J., Lopez, J.: A segregated architecture for a trust-based network of internet of things. In: 2019 16th IEEE Annual Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC), pp. 1–6 (2019)

  40. 40.

    Friedenthal, S., Moore, A., Steiner, R.: A Practical Guide to SysML: The Systems Modeling Language. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Kissel, R.L., Stine, K.M., Scholl, M.A., Rossman, H., Fahlsing, J., Gulick, J.: Security considerations in the system development life cycle (No. Special Publication (NIST SP)-800-64 Rev 2) (2008)

  42. 42.

    Geisser, M., Hildenbrand, T.: A method for collaborative requirements elicitation and decision-supported requirements analysis. In: IFIP World Computer Congress, TC 2 (pp. 108–122). Springer, Boston (2006)

  43. 43.

    Saaty, T.L.: Analytic hierarchy process. Encyclopedia of Biostatistics, 1, (2005)

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has received funding from the NeCS project by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 675320, the CyberSec4Europe project under SU-ICT-03 programme grant agreement 830929, and the SMOG project founded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (TIN2016-79095-C2-1-R). This work reflects only the authors’ view and the Research Executive Agency is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Davide Ferraris.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ferraris, D., Fernandez-Gago, C. TrUStAPIS: a trust requirements elicitation method for IoT. Int. J. Inf. Secur. 19, 111–127 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10207-019-00438-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Trust
  • Internet of things (IoT)
  • Requirements engineering
  • System development life cycle (SDLC)
  • JavaScript notation object (JSON)