Advertisement

Information Systems and e-Business Management

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 101–140 | Cite as

Components of a multi-perspective modeling method for designing and managing IT security systems

  • Anat GoldsteinEmail author
  • Ulrich Frank
Original Article

Abstract

Information technology (IT) security design and management are a major concern and substantial challenge for IT management. Today’s highly complex business and technological environments and the need to effectively communicate and justify IT security requirements and controls demand methodical support. The modeling method presented in this paper addresses this demand. The method is based on the assumption that enriched enterprise models integrating technological, business, organizational and strategic aspects provide an effective foundation for developing and managing IT security systems and facilitating communication and understanding between stakeholders. The proposed modeling method for designing and managing IT security in organizations accounts for different perspectives and is based on multi-perspective enterprise modeling. The core components of the method, based on analysis of requirements at different levels of abstraction, are: modeling language concepts specifically designed to address security issues, process models that guide the use of the resulting language, and a modeling environment. The method facilitates elaborate representations of the various aspects of IT security at different levels of abstraction and covers the entire lifecycle of IT security systems. It not only supports multi-perspective requirement analysis and design but also enables monitoring and analysis of IT security at runtime. The presented artifact is evaluated with recourse to a research method that enables the configuration of multi-criteria justification procedures.

Keywords

IT security Multi-perspective security management Information security modeling Enterprise modeling Domain-specific modeling language 

References

  1. Accorsi R, Wonnemann C, Dochow S (2011) SWAT: a security workflow analysis toolkit for reliably secure process-aware information systems. In: Sixth international conference on availability, reliability and security (ARES), pp 692–697Google Scholar
  2. Agrawal A, Finnie G, Krishnan P (2010) A general framework to measure organizational risk during information systems evolution and its customization. J Res Pract Inf Technol 42(1):37–60Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson C, Kühne T (2008) Reducing accidental complexity in domain models. SoSyM 7(3):345–359Google Scholar
  4. Baskerville R (1993) Information systems security design methods: implications for information systems development. ACM Comput Surv 25(4):375–414. doi: 10.1145/162124.162127 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birch DGW, McEvoy NA (1992) Risk analysis for information systems. J Inf Technol 7:44–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bishop M (2003) What is computer security? IEEE Secur Privacy Mag 1(1):67–69. doi: 10.1109/MSECP.2003.1176998 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blair G, Bencomo N, France RB (2009) Models@ run.time. Computer 42(10):22–27. doi: 10.1109/MC.2009.326 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caralli RA, Stevens JF, Young LR, Wilson WR (2007) The OCTAVE Allegro Guidebook, v1. 0, Software Engineering InstituteGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark T, Sammut P, Willans J (2008) Applied metamodelling: a foundation for language driven developmentGoogle Scholar
  10. COBIT (2007) cobit control practices: guidance to achieve control objectives for successful IT governance, IT Governance Institute, 2nd edn. Isaca, ILGoogle Scholar
  11. den Braber F, Hogganvik I, Lund MS, Stølen K, Vraalsen F (2007) Model-based security analysis in seven steps—a guided tour to the CORAS method. BT Technol J 25(1):101–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Devanbu PT, Stubblebine S (2000) Software engineering for security: a roadmap. In: Finkelstein A (ed) Proceedings of the conference on the future of software engineering. ACM, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  13. Fabian B, Gürses S, Heisel M, Santen T, Schmidt H (2010) A comparison of security requirements engineering methods. Requir Eng 15(1):7–40. doi: 10.1007/s00766-009-0092-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Firesmith DG (2003) Common concepts underlying safety security and survivability engineeringGoogle Scholar
  15. Frank U (2006) Towards a pluralistic conception of research methods in information systems research towards a pluralistic conception in information systems research. ICB-ReportGoogle Scholar
  16. Frank U (2010) Outline of a method for designing domain-specific modelling languages. ICB-Report 42Google Scholar
  17. Frank U (2011a) MEMO organization modelling language (1): focus on organizational structure. ICB-Report 48. ICB-ReportGoogle Scholar
  18. Frank U (2011b) MEMO organization modelling language (2): focus on business processes. ICB-Report 49. ICB-ReportGoogle Scholar
  19. Frank U (2011c) MEMO organizational modelling language: requirements and core diagram types. ICB-Report 47Google Scholar
  20. Frank U (2011d) The MEMO meta modelling language (MML) and language architecture. ICB-Report 43. ICB-ReportGoogle Scholar
  21. Frank U (2013) Multi-perspective enterprise modeling: foundational concepts, prospects and future research challenges. Softw Syst Model. doi: 10.1007/s10270-012-0273-9
  22. Frank U (2014) Multilevel modeling. Bus Inf Syst Eng 6(6):319–337. doi: 10.1007/s12599-014-0350-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frank U, Strecker S (2009) Beyond ERP systems: an outline of self-referential enterprise systems. Requirements, conceptual foundation and design options. ICB-Research Report 31Google Scholar
  24. Frank U, Heise D, Kattenstroth H, Ferguson D, Hadar E, Waschke M (2009) ITML: a domain-specific modeling language for supporting business driven it management. In: Proceedings of the 9th workshop on domain-specific modeling (DSM) at the international conference on object oriented programming, systems, languages and applications (OOPSLA), Orlando, FLGoogle Scholar
  25. Gaaloul K, Proper E, Charoy F (2012) An extended RBAC model for task delegation in workflow systems. In: Aalst W, Mylopoulos J, Rosemann M, Shaw MJ, Szyperski C, Niedrite L, Strazdina R, Wangler B (eds) Workshops on business informatics research, vol 106. Springer, Berlin, pp 51–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Giorgini P, Massacci F, Mylopoulos J, Zannone N (2005) Modeling security requirements through ownership, permission and delegation. In: 13th IEEE international conference on requirements engineeringGoogle Scholar
  27. Goldstein A, Frank U (2012a) A language for multi-perspective modelling of IT security: objectives and analysis of requirements. In: Rosa M, Soffer P (eds) Business process management workshops. BPM 2012 International Workshops, Tallinn, Estonia, September 3, 2012. Revised papers, vol 132. Springer, Berlin, pp 636–648Google Scholar
  28. Goldstein A, Frank U (2012b) Augmented enterprise models as a foundation for generating security-related software: requirements and prospects. In: Proceedings of the workshop on model-driven security. ACM, [S.l.]Google Scholar
  29. Graumann C (1993) Perspektivität in Kognition und Sprache. SPIEL 12(2):156–172Google Scholar
  30. Gulden J, Frank U (2010) MEMOCenterNG. A full-featured modeling environment for organisation modeling and model-driven software development. In: Soffer P, Proper E (eds) Information systems evolution proceedings of the CAiSE forum of the 22nd international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE’10). Selected extended papers. Springer, Berlin, pp 7–11Google Scholar
  31. Habermas J (1984) The theory of communicative action. Beacon Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  32. Hafner M, Breu R, Agreiter B, Nowak A (2006) SECTET: an extensible framework for the realization of secure inter-organizational workflows. Internet Res 16(5):491–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hatfield AJ, Hipel KW (2002) Risk and systems theory. Risk Anal 22(6):1043–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Heidegger M (2006) Sein und Zeit, 19th edn. Niemeyer, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  35. ISO/IEC (2012) Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, Version 3.1Google Scholar
  36. ISO/IEC 27001 (2013) ISO/IEC 27001:2013 information technology—security techniques—information security management systems—requirementsGoogle Scholar
  37. ISO/IEC27000 (2009) Information technology—Security techniques—Information security management systems—Overview and vocabularyGoogle Scholar
  38. ISO/IEC27005 (2008) Information technology. Security techniques. Information security risk managementGoogle Scholar
  39. ITIL (2007) ITIL service design, 1st edn. The Stationery Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Jürjens J (2002) UMLsec: extending UML for secure systems development. In: UML2002—the unified modeling language. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  41. Kant I (1998) Critique of pure reason. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kiczales G, Lamping J, Mendhekar A, Maeda C, Lopes C, Loingtier J, Irwin J (1997) Aspect-oriented programming. In: Aksit, Mehmet and Matsuoka, Satoshi (ed) The 11th European conference on object-oriented programming (ECOOP). Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  43. Kirchner L (2005) Cost oriented modelling of IT-landscapes: generic language concepts of a domain specific language. In: Proceedings of the workshop on enterprise modelling and information systems architectures (EMISA 2005), pp 166–179Google Scholar
  44. Köhling C (2013) Entwurf einer konzeptuellen Modellierungsmethode zur Unterstützung rationaler Zielplanungsprozesse in Unternehmen. Cuvillier, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  45. Kokolakis SA, Demopoulos AJ, Kiountouzis EA (2000) The use of business process modelling in information systems security analysis and design. Inf Manage Comput Secur 8(3):107–116Google Scholar
  46. Landin PJ (1964) The mechanical evaluation of expressions. Comput J 6(4):308–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lankhorst M (2005) Enterprise architecture at work. Modelling, communication, and analysis. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  48. Lodderstedt T, Basin DA, Doser J (2002) SecureUML: a UML-based modeling language for model-driven security. In: Jézéquel J, Hußmann H, Cook S (eds) The unified modeling language, UML2002. SpringerLink [host], Berlin [etc.], pp 426–441Google Scholar
  49. Luhmann N (1979) Trust and power. Two works. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  50. Matulevičius R, Mouratidis H, Mayer N, Dubois E, Heymans P (2012) Syntactic and semantic extensions to secure tropos to support security risk management. J Univ Comput Sci 18(6):816–844Google Scholar
  51. Mayer N, Heymans P, Matulevicius R (2007) Design of a modelling language for information system security risk management. In: The 1st international conference on research challenges in information science (RCIS 2007)Google Scholar
  52. McDermott JP, Fox C (1999) Using abuse case models for security requirements analysis. In: 15th annual computer security applications conference (ACSAC). IEEE Computer Society, pp 55–64Google Scholar
  53. Nakamura Y, Tatsubori M, Imamura T, Ono K (2005) Model-driven security based on a web services security architecture. In: IEEE international conference on services computing, 2005. 11–15 July 2005, Orlando, FL, vol 1. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA [u.a.], pp 7–15Google Scholar
  54. NIST (2002) Risk management guide for information technology systemsGoogle Scholar
  55. Odell JJ (1994) Power types. Object Orient Progr 7(2):8–12Google Scholar
  56. Pfleeger CP, Pfleeger SL (2007) Security in computing, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  57. Rodriguez A, Fernandez-Medina E, Piattini M (2006) Security requirement with a UML 2.0 profile. In: The first international conference on availability, reliability and security, 2006. (ARES 2006). IEEE Computer SocietyGoogle Scholar
  58. Rorty R (1999) Philosophy and social hope. Penguin Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  59. Schauer H (2009) Unternehmensmodellierung für das Wissensmanagement. Eine multi-perspektivische Methode zur ganzheitlichen Analyse und Planung. VDM-Verl, Müller, SaarbrückenGoogle Scholar
  60. Scheer AW (2000) ARIS: business process modeling, 3rd edn. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schelp J, Winter R (2006) Method engineering: Lessons learned from reference modeling. In: First international conference on design science research in information systems and technology. ClaremontGoogle Scholar
  62. Schütz A (1981) Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt, 2nd edn. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  63. Sindre G, Opdahl AL (2005) Eliciting security requirements with misuse cases. Requir Eng 10(1):34–44. doi: 10.1007/s00766-004-0194-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Strecker S, Heise D, Frank U (2011a) Prolegomena of a modelling method in support of audit risk assessment: outline of a domain-specific modelling language for internal controls and internal control systems. Enterp Model Infor Syst Arch Int J 6(3):5–24Google Scholar
  65. Strecker S, Heise D, Frank U (2011b) RiskM: a multi-perspective modeling method for IT risk assessment. Inf Syst Front 13(4):595–611. doi: 10.1007/s10796-010-9235-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Strecker S, Frank U, Heise D, Kattenstroth H (2012) MetricM: a modeling method in support of the reflective design and use of performance measurement systems. Inf Syst E-Bus Manage 10(2):241–276. doi: 10.1007/s10257-011-0172-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. van Lamsweerde A (2004) Elaborating security requirements by construction of intentional anti-models. In: The 26th international conference on software engineering, pp 148–157Google Scholar
  68. von Solms B (2001) Information security—a multidimensional discipline. Comput Secur 20(6):504–508. doi: 10.1016/S0167-4048(01)00608-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wollnik M (1986) Implementierung computergestützter Informationssysteme. Perspektive und Politik informationstechnologischer Gestaltung. W. de Gruyter, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wolter C, Schaad A (2007) Modeling of task-based authorization constraints in BPMN. In: Business process management. Springer, Berlin, pp 64–79Google Scholar
  71. Wolter C, Menzel M, Meinel C (2008) Modelling security goals in business processes. In: Kühne T (ed) Modellierung 2008. 12–14 März 2008 Berlin. GI, Bonn, pp 197–212Google Scholar
  72. Zuccato A (2007) Holistic security management framework applied in electronic commerce. Comput Secur 26(3):256–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial and Management EngineeringBen-Gurion University of the NegevBeer-ShevaIsrael
  2. 2.Institute for Computer Science and Business Information SystemsUniversity of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations