Abstract
The criticality of risk management is evident when considering the information society of today, and the emergence of Future Internet technologies such as Cloud services. Information systems and services become ever more complex, heterogeneous, dynamic and interoperable, and many different stakeholders increasingly rely on their availability and protection. Managing risks in such a setting is extremely challenging, and existing methods and techniques are often inadequate. A main difficulty is that the overall risk picture becomes too complex to understand without methodic and systematic techniques for how to decompose a large scale risk analysis into smaller parts. In this chapter we introduce a notion of risk model encapsulation to address this challenge. Encapsulation facilitates compositional risk analysis by hiding internal details of a risk model. This is achieved by defining a risk model interface that contains all and only the information that is needed for composing the individual risk models to derive the overall risk picture. The interface takes into account possible dependencies between the risk models. We outline a method for compositional risk analysis, and demonstrate the approach by using an example on information security from the petroleum industry.
Keywords
- Risk analysis
- risk modeling
- risk model encapsulation
- risk composition
- security
- ICT
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Agence nationale de la sécurité des systèmes d’information: EBIOS 2010 – Expression of Needs and Identification of Security Objectives (2010) (in French)
Alberts, C.J., Dorofee, A.J.: OCTAVE Criteria. Tech. Rep. CMU/SEI-2001-TR-016, CERT (December 2001)
Brændeland, G., Refsdal, A., Stølen, K.: Modular analysis and modelling of risk scenarios with dependencies. Journal of Systems and Software 83(10), 1995–2013 (2010)
Brændeland, G., Refsdal, A., Stølen, K.: A denotational model for component-based risk analysis. In: Arbab, F., Ölveczky, P.C. (eds.) FACS 2011. LNCS, vol. 7253, pp. 12–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
Brændeland, G., Stølen, K.: Using model-driven risk analysis in component-based development, pp. 330–380. IGI Global (2011)
CRAMM – The total information security toolkit, http://www.cramm.com/ (accessed June 13, 2012)
Giese, H., Tichy, M.: Component-based hazard analysis: Optimal designs, product lines, and online-reconfiguration. In: Górski, J. (ed.) SAFECOMP 2006. LNCS, vol. 4166, pp. 156–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Giese, H., Tichy, M., Schilling, D.: Compositional hazard analysis of UML component and deployment models. In: Heisel, M., Liggesmeyer, P., Wittmann, S. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3219, pp. 166–179. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Gigerenzer, G.: Calculated Risks – How to Know When Numbers Deceive You. Simon & Schuster (2002)
International Electrotechnical Commission: IEC 61025 Fault Tree Analysis, FTA (1990)
International Organization for Standardization: ISO 31000 Risk management – Principles and guidelines (2009)
International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission: ISO/IEC 27001 – Information technology – Security techniques – Information security management systems – Requirements (2005)
Kaiser, B., Liggesmeyer, P., Mäckel, O.: A new component concept for fault trees. In: Proc. 8th Australian Workshop on Safety Critical Systems and Software (SCS), vol. 33, pp. 37–46. Australian Computer Society (2003)
Lund, M.S., Solhaug, B., Stølen, K.: Evolution in relation to risk and trust management. Computer 43(5), 49–50 (2010)
Lund, M.S., Solhaug, B., Stølen, K.: Model-Driven Risk Analysis – The CORAS Approach. Springer (2011)
Microsoft Solutions for Security and Compliance and Microsoft Security Center of Excellence: The Security Risk Management Guide (2006)
Object Management Group: OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), Superstructure. Version 2.3, OMG Document: formal/2010-05-03 (2010)
de Roever, W.: The quest for compositionality – A survey of assertion-based proof systems for concurrent programs, part 1: Concurrency based on shared variables. In: Proc. IFIP Working Conference on the Role of Abstract Models in Computer Science. North-Holland (1985)
Stoneburner, G., Goguen, A., Feringa, A.: Risk management guide for information technology systems. Tech. Rep. 800-30, NIST (2001)
Tran, L.M.S., Solhaug, B., Stølen, K.: An approach to select cost-effective risk countermeasures exemplified in CORAS. Tech. Rep. A24343, SINTEF ICT (2013)
Verdon, D., McGraw, G.: Risk analysis in software design. IEEE Security & Privacy 2(4), 79–84 (2004)
Viehmann, J.: Reusing risk analysis results – An extension for the CORAS risk analysis method. In: Proc. 4th International Conference on Information Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust (PASSAT), pp. 742–751. IEEE (2012)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Refsdal, A., Rideng, Ø., Solhaug, B., Stølen, K. (2014). Divide and Conquer – Towards a Notion of Risk Model Encapsulation. In: Heisel, M., Joosen, W., Lopez, J., Martinelli, F. (eds) Engineering Secure Future Internet Services and Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8431. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07452-8_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07452-8_14
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-07451-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-07452-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)