Advertisement

OPBUS: Fault Tolerance Against Integrity Attacks in Business Processes

  • Angel Jesus Varela Vaca
  • Rafael Martínez Gasca
Part of the Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing book series (AINSC, volume 85)

Abstract

Management and automation of business processes have become essential tasks within IT organizations.Nowadays, executable business processes are the most extended kind of operational business processes. They usually use external services which are not under our jurisdiction and an intrusion attack over them could be not controlled, introducing unexpected fault in their execution. Organizations must ensure that their business processes are as dependable as possible before automating them. Fault tolerance techniques provide certain mechanisms to decrease the risk of possible faults in systems. In this work, OPBUS framework is proposed as solution for developing business processes with fault tolerance capabilities. Fault tolerance techniques are applied to resist faults related with integrity attacks over services involved in business processes. To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first approach that achieves a fault tolerance solution over business processes based on checkpoints and rollback using constraint programming.

Keywords

Business Process Fault Tolerance Business Process Model Integrity Sensor Fault Tolerance Mechanism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Business process execution language (2008), http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsbpel/2.0/OS/wsbpel-v2.0-OS.html
  2. 2.
    Business process model and notation (2009), http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/1.2
  3. 3.
    Baldoni, R.: A communication-induced checkpointing protocol that ensures rollback-dependency trackability. In: FTCS 1997: Proceedings of the 27th International Symposium on Fault-Tolerant Computing (FTCS 1997), Washington, DC, USA, p. 68. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1997) ISBN 0-8186-7831-3Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baresi, L., Guinea, S., Plebani, M.: Business process monitoring for dependability. In: WADS, pp. 337–361 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Borrego, D., Gómez-López, M.T., Gasca, R.M., Ceballos, R.: Determination of an optimal test points allocation for business process analysis. In: IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium Workshops, BDIM 2010 (2010) ISBN 978-1-4244-6039-7Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cao, G., Singhal, M.: Checkpointing with mutable checkpoints. Theor. Comput. Sci. 290(2), 1127–1148 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dobson, G.: Using ws-bpel to implement software fault tolerance for web services. In: EUROMICRO-SEAA, pp. 126–133 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huang, L., Walker, D.W., Rana, O.F., Huang, Y.: Dynamic workflow management using performance data. In: IEEE International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud, and Grid Computing, pp. 154–157 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huang, S.-M., Chu, Y.-T., Li, S.-H., Yen, D.C.: Enhancing conflict detecting mechanism for web services composition: A business process flow model transformation approach. Inf. Softw. Technol. 50(11), 1069–1087 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim, J.L., Park, T.: An efficient protocol for checkpointing recovery in distributed systems. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 4(8), 955–960 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mendling, J., Moser, M., Neumann, G., Verbeek, H.M.W., Vandongen, B.F.: Faulty epcs in the sap reference model. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 451–457. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Miller, J., Mukerji, J.: Mda guide version 1.0.1. Technical report, Object Management Group, OMG (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ouyang, C., van der Alast, W.M.P., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Translating bpmn to bpel (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rossi, F., van Beek, P., Walsh, T. (eds.): Handbook of Constraint Programming. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shi, X., Pazat, J.-L., Rodriguez, E., Jin, H., Jiang, H.: Adapting grid applications to safety using fault-tolerant methods: Design, implementation and evaluations. Future Generation Computer Systems 26(2), 236–244 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stahl, T., Völter, M.: Model-Driven Software Development: Technology, Engineering, Management. Wiley, Chichester (2006) ISBN 978-0-470-02570-3Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Weske, M.: Business Process Management: A Survey, pp. 1–12 (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Varela-Vaca, A.J., Gasca, R.M., Borrego, D., Pozo, S.: Towards dependable business processes with fault-tolerance approach. In: 3rd International Conference on Dependability, DEPEND (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer, Heidelberg (2007) ISBN 978-3-540-73521-2Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angel Jesus Varela Vaca
    • 1
  • Rafael Martínez Gasca
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de Lenguajes y Sistemas Informáticos, ETS. Ingeniería InformáticaUniversidad de SevillaSevillaSpain

Personalised recommendations