Advertisement

The Socio-technical Security Requirements Modelling Language for Secure Composite Services

  • Elda Paja
  • Fabiano Dalpiaz
  • Paolo Giorgini
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8900)

Abstract

Composite services foster reuse and efficiency in providing consumers with different functionalities (services). However, security aspects are a major concern, considering that both service consumers and providers are autonomous and heterogeneous—thus, loosely controllable entities. When consumers provide information in order to be furnished some service, what happens to that information? Do service consumers trust service providers? In order to tackle the design of secure and trustworthy composite services, we should consider the security requirements such a composition must satisfy. We propose STS-ml, a security requirements modelling language that allows modelling security requirements over participants’ (consumers and providers) interactions. These security requirements are expressed in terms of social contracts the various parties shall comply with while interacting (consuming/furnishing some service). Most importantly, STS-ml considers social and organisational threats that might affect the said composite services. In this chapter, we give an overview of STS-ml, introducing its modelling and reasoning capabilities while building models from the Aniketos eGovernment case study and verifying that the composite service complies with the specification, as well as checking whether a recomposition is needed.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Dalpiaz, F., Chopra, A.K., Giorgini, P., Mylopoulos, J.: Adaptation in open systems: Giving interaction its rightful place. In: Parsons, J., Saeki, M., Shoval, P., Woo, C., Wand, Y. (eds.) ER 2010. LNCS, vol. 6412, pp. 31–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dalpiaz, F., Paja, E., Giorgini, P.: Security requirements engineering via commitments. In: Proceedings of STAST 2011, pp. 1–8 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Mannila, H.: Disjunctive datalog. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS) 22(3), 364–418 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Elahi, G., Yu, E.: A Goal Oriented Approach for Modeling and Analyzing Security Trade-Offs. In: Parent, C., Schewe, K.-D., Storey, V.C., Thalheim, B. (eds.) ER 2007. LNCS, vol. 4801, pp. 375–390. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giorgini, P., Massacci, F., Mylopoulos, J., Zannone, N.: Modeling security requirements through ownership, permission and delegation. In: Proc. of RE 2005, pp. 167–176 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Singh, M.P.: An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems: Toward a unification of normative concepts. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7(1), 97–113 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Singh, M.P., Huhns, M.N.: Service-Oriented Computing: Semantics, Processes, Agents. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Trösterer, S., Beck, E., Dalpiaz, F., Paja, E., Giorgini, P., Tscheligi, M.: Formative user-centered evaluation of security modeling: Results from a case study. International Journal of Secure Software Engineering 3(1), 1–19 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yu, E.: Modelling strategic relationships for process reengineering. PhD thesis, University of Toronto, Canada (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elda Paja
    • 1
  • Fabiano Dalpiaz
    • 2
  • Paolo Giorgini
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Trento – DISIPovoItaly
  2. 2.Department of Information and Computing SciencesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations