Advertisement

Assessing Security and Privacy Behavioural Risks for Self-Protection Systems

  • Yijun YuEmail author
  • Yoshioka Nobukazu
  • Tetsuo Tamai
Chapter

Abstract

Security and privacy can often be considered from two perspectives. The first perspective is that of the attacker who seeks to exploit vulnerabilities of the system to harm assets such as the software system itself or its users. The second perspective is that of the defender who seeks to protect the assets by minimising the likelihood of attacks on those assets. This chapter focuses on analysing security and privacy risks from these two perspectives considering both the software system and its uncertain environment including uncertain human behaviours. These risks are dynamically changing at runtime, making them even harder to analyse. To compute the range of these risks, we highlight how to alternate between the attacker and the defender perspectives as part of an iterative process. We then quantify the risk assessment as part of adaptive security and privacy mechanisms complementing the logic reasoning of qualitative risks in argumentation (Yu et al., J Syst Softw 106:102–116, 2015). We illustrate the proposed approach through the risk analysis of examples in security and privacy.

References

  1. 1.
    Barth, A., Datta, A., Mitchell, J.C., Nissenbaum, H.: Privacy and contextual integrity: framework and applications. In: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP’06, pp. 184–198. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2006). https://doi.org/10.1109/SP.2006.32
  2. 2.
    Brun, Y., Di Marzo Serugendo, G., Gacek, C., Giese, H., Kienle, H., Litoiu, M., Müller, H., Pezzè, M., Shaw, M.: Engineering Self-Adaptive Systems through Feedback Loops, pp. 48–70. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02161-9_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen, B., Peng, X., Yu, Y., Zhao, W.: Requirements-driven self-optimization of composite services using feedback control. IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. 8(1), 107–120 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TSC.2014.2298866 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Iglesia, D.G.D.L., Weyns, D.: Mape-k formal templates to rigorously design behaviors for self-adaptive systems. ACM Trans. Auton. Adapt. Syst. 10(3), 15:1–15:31 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2724719 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ISO/IEC: Iso/iec 25010 system and software quality models. Technical report (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jackson, M.: System behaviours and problem frames: concepts, concerns and the role of formalisms in the development of cyber-physical systems. In: Dependable Software Systems Engineering, pp. 79–104 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-495-4-79
  7. 7.
    Kwiatkowska, M., Norman, G., Parker, D.: PRISM 4.0: verification of probabilistic real-time systems. In: Gopalakrishnan, G., Qadeer, S. (eds.) Proceedings of 23rd International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV’11), Snowbird. LNCS, vol. 6806, pp. 585–591. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a guided tour. In: 5th IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE 2001), 27–31 Aug 2001, Toronto, p. 249 (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1109/ISRE.2001.948567
  9. 9.
    Mullen, K., Ardia, D., Gil, D., Windover, D., Cline, J.: DEoptim: an R package for global optimization by differential evolution. J. Stat. Softw. 40(6), 1–26 (2011). http://www.jstatsoft.org/v40/i06/ CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rafiq, Y., Dickens, L., Russo, A., Bandara, A.K., Yang, M., Stuart, A., Levine, M., Calikli, G., Price, B.A., Nuseibeh, B.: Learning to share: engineering adaptive decision-support for online social networks. In: Proceedings of the 32nd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE ’17), IEEE Press, Piscataway, pp. 280–285 (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sutcliffe, A., Sawyer, P.: Requirements elicitation: towards the unknown unknowns. In: 2013 21st IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), Rio de Janeiro, pp. 92–104 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2013.6636709
  12. 12.
    Tun, T.T., Bandara, A.K., Price, B.A., Yu, Y., Haley, C., Omoronyia, I., Nuseibeh, B.: Privacy arguments: analysing selective disclosure requirements for mobile applications. In: 2012 20th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), Chicago, pp. 131–140 (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Warren, S.D., Brandeis, L.D.: The right to privacy. Harvard Law Rev. 4(5), 193–220 (1890). http://www.jstor.org/stable/1321160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yang, M., Yu, Y., Bandara, A.K., Nuseibeh, B.: Adaptive sharing for online social networks: a trade-off between privacy risk and social benefit. In: 13th IEEE International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications, TrustCom 2014, Beijing, 24–26 Sept 2014, pp. 45–52 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1109/TrustCom.2014.10
  15. 15.
    Yu, Y.: Risk assessment using early requirements models: a guided tour. In: 25th International Requirements Engineering Conference, Tutorial, Lisbon (2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yu, Y., Franqueira, V.N.L., Tun, T.T., Wieringa, R., Nuseibeh, B.: Automated analysis of security requirements through risk-based argumentation. J. Syst. Softw. 106, 102–116 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2015.04.065 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zave, P., Jackson, M.: Four dark corners of requirements engineering. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 6(1), 1–30 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1145/237432.237434 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK
  2. 2.National Institute of InformaticsTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Hosei UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations