Optimising Architectures for Performance, Cost, and Security

  • Rajitha YasaweerasinghelageEmail author
  • Mark Staples
  • Hye-Young Paik
  • Ingo Weber
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11681)


Deciding on the optimal architecture of a software system is difficult, as the number of design alternatives and component interactions can be overwhelmingly large. Adding security considerations can make architecture evaluation even more challenging. Existing model-based approaches for architecture optimisation usually focus on performance and cost constraints. This paper proposes a model-based architecture optimisation approach that advances the state-of-the-art by adding security constraints. The proposed approach is implemented in a prototype tool, by extending Palladio Component Model (PCM) and PerOpteryx. Through a laboratory-based evaluation study of a multi-party confidential data analytics system, we show how our tool discovers secure architectural design options on the Pareto frontier of cost and performance.


Software architecture Software performance Data security Architecture optimisation 


  1. 1.
    Aleti, A., Buhnova, B., Grunske, L., Koziolek, A., Meedeniya, I.: Software architecture optimization methods: a systematic literature review. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 39(5), 658–683 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ardagna, D., Casale, G., Ciavotta, M., Pérez, J.F., Wang, W.: Quality-of-service in cloud computing: modeling techniques and their applications. J. Internet Serv. Appl. 5, 5–11 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balsamo, S., Di Marco, A., Inverardi, P., Simeoni, M.: Model-based performance prediction in software development: a survey. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 30(5), 295–310 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Becker, S., Koziolek, H., Reussner, R.: The Palladio component model for model-driven performance prediction. J. Syst. Softw. 82(1), 3–22 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brunnert, A., et al.: Performance-oriented DevOps: a research agenda. arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.04752 (2015)
  6. 6.
    Busch, A., Strittmatter, M., Koziolek, A.: Assessing security to compare architecture alternatives of component-based systems. In: International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Colbert, E., Boehm, B.: Cost estimation for secure software & systems. In: ISPA/SCEA 2008 Joint International Conference (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Gooijer, T., Jansen, A., Koziolek, H., Koziolek, A.: An industrial case study of performance and cost design space exploration. In: International Conference on Performance Engineering. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Djatmiko, M., et al.: Privacy-preserving entity resolution and logistic regression on encrypted data. In: Private and Secure Machine Learning (PSML) (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kang, E.: Design space exploration for security. In: 2016 IEEE Cybersecurity Development (SecDev), pp. 30–36. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klein, G., et al.: seL4: formal verification of an OS kernel. In: Symposium on Operating Systems Principles. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kounev, S., Brosig, F., Huber, N.: The Descartes modeling language. Department of Computer Science, University of Wuerzburg, Technical report (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koziolek, A., Koziolek, H., Reussner, R.: PerOpteryx: automated application of tactics in multi-objective software architecture optimization. In: Proceedings of the QoSA & ISARCS. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krichene, J., Boudriga, N., Fatmi, S.: SECOMO: an estimation cost model for risk management projects. In: International Conference on Telecommunications, ConTEL 2003, vol. 2. IEEE (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Madan, B.B., Goševa-Popstojanova, K., Vaidyanathan, K., Trivedi, K.S.: A method for modeling and quantifying the security attributes of intrusion tolerant systems. Perform. Eval. 56(1–4), 167–186 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Martens, A., Koziolek, H., Becker, S., Reussner, R.: Automatically improve software architecture models for performance, reliability, and cost using evolutionary algorithms. In: International Conference on Performance Engineering (ICPE) (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Newsome, J., Song, D.X.: Dynamic taint analysis for automatic detection, analysis, and signature generation of exploits on commodity software. In: NDSS, vol. 5. Internet Society (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reussner, R.H., et al.: Modeling and Simulating Software Architectures: The Palladio Approach. MIT Press, Cambridge (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Safwat, A., Senousy, M.: Addressing challenges of ultra large scale system on requirements engineering. Procedia Comput. Sci. 65, 442–449 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sharma, V.S., Trivedi, K.S.: Architecture based analysis of performance, reliability and security of software systems. In: International Workshop on Software and Performance. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Willnecker, F., Brunnert, A., Krcmar, H.: Predicting energy consumption by extending the Palladio component model. In: Symposium on Software Performance (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yang, Z., Yang, M.: LeakMiner: detect information leakage on android with static taint analysis. In: 2012 Third World Congress on Software Engineering (WCSE). IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yasaweerasinghelage, R., Staples, M., Weber, I.: Predicting latency of blockchain-based systems using architectural modelling and simulation. In: International Conference on Software Architecture (ICSA) (2017)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yasaweerasinghelage, R., Staples, M., Weber, I., Paik, H.Y.: Predicting the performance of privacy-preserving data analytics using architecture modelling and simulation. In: International Conference on Software Architecture (ICSA) (2018)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rajitha Yasaweerasinghelage
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Mark Staples
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hye-Young Paik
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ingo Weber
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Data61, CSIRO, Level 5EveleighAustralia
  2. 2.School of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations