Advertisement

Preserving Compliance with Security Requirements in Socio-Technical Systems

Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 470)

Abstract

Socio-technical systems are an interplay of social (humans and organizations) and technical components interacting with one another to achieve their objectives. Security is a central issue in such complex systems, and it cannot be tackled only through technical mechanisms: the encryption of sensitive data while being transmitted, does not assure that the receiver will not disclose them to unauthorized parties. Therefore, dealing with security in socio-technical systems requires an analysis: (i) from a social and organizational perspective, to elicit the objectives and security requirements of each component; (ii) from a procedural perspective, to define how the actors behave and interact with each other. But, socio-technical systems need to adapt to changes of the external environment, making the need to deal with security a problem that has to be faced during all the systems’ life-cycle. We propose an iterative and incremental process to elicit security requirements and verify the socio-technical system’s compliance with such requirements throughout the systems’ life cycle.

Keywords

Socio-technical systems Security requirements Security policies Compliance Business processes 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant no. 257930 (Aniketos).

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Federal Aviation Administration. SWIM ATM case study, Last visited, March 2014. http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/techops/atc_comms_services/swim/
  3. 3.
    Anderson, R.: Security Engineering: A Guide to Building Dependable Distributed Systems. Wiley, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beeri, C., Eyal, A., Kamenkovich, S., Milo, T.: Querying business processes with BP-QL. Inf. Syst. 33(6), 477–507 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brucker, A.D., Hang, I., Lückemeyer, G., Ruparel, R.: SecureBPMN: modeling and enforcing access control requirements in business processes. In: Proceedings of SACMAT’12, pp. 123–126 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cherdantseva, Y., Hilton, J.: A reference model of information assurance and security. In: Proceedings of ARES ’13, pp. 546–555 (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crook, R., Ince, D., Lin, L., Nuseibeh, B.: Security requirements engineering: when anti-requirements hit the fan. In: Proceedings of RE’02, pp. 203–205. IEEE (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dalpiaz, F., Paja, E., Giorgini, P.: Security requirements engineering via commitments. In: Proceedings of STAST’11, pp. 1–8 (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deutch, D., Milo, T.: Querying structural and behavioral properties of business processes. In: Arenas, M. (ed.) DBPL 2007. LNCS, vol. 4797, pp. 169–185. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ghose, A.K., Koliadis, G.: Auditing business process compliance. In: Krämer, B.J., Lin, K.-J., Narasimhan, P. (eds.) ICSOC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4749, pp. 169–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giorgini, P., Massacci, F., Mylopoulos, J., Zannone, N.: Modeling security requirements through ownership, permission and delegation. In: Proceedings of RE’05, pp. 167–176 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johansson, H.J., McHugh, P., Pendlebury, A.J., Wheeler, W.A.: Business Process Reengineering: Breakpoint Strategies for Market Dominance. Wiley and Sons, Chichester (1993)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johnstone, M.N.: Security requirements engineering-the reluctant oxymoron. In: Proceedings of Australian Information Security Management Conference, p. 5 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu, Y., Müller, S., Xu, K.: A static compliance-checking framework for business process models. IBM Syst. J. 46(2), 335–361 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Menzel, M., Thomas, I., Meinel, C.: Security requirements specification in service-oriented business process management. In: Proceedings of ARES ’09, pp. 41–48 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mouratidis, H., Giorgini, P.: Secure tropos: a security-oriented extension of the tropos methodology. IJSEKE 17(2), 285–309 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    OMG. BPMN 2.0., Jan 2011. http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0
  18. 18.
    Paja, E., Dalpiaz, F., Giorgini, P.: Managing security requirements conflicts in socio-technical systems. In: Proceedings of ER’13, pp. 270–283 (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Paja, E., Dalpiaz, F., Poggianella, M., Roberti, P., Giorgini, P.: Specifying and reasoning over socio-technical security requirements with STS-tool. In: Ng, W., Storey, V.C., Trujillo, J.C. (eds.) ER 2013. LNCS, vol. 8217, pp. 504–507. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rodríguez, A., Fernández-Medina, E., Piattini, M.: A BPMN extension for the modeling of security requirements in business processes. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. 90(4), 745–752 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rushby, J.: Using model checking to help discover mode confusions and other automation surprises. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 75, 167–177 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sadiq, W., Governatori, G., Namiri, K.: Modeling control objectives for business process compliance. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 149–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Saleem, M., Jaafar, J., Hassan, M.: A domain- specific language for modelling security objectives in a business process models of SOA applications. AISS 4(1), 353–362 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Salnitri, M., Dalpiaz, F., Giorgini, P.: Aligning service-oriented architectures with security requirements. In: Meersman, R., Panetto, H., Dillon, T., Rinderle-Ma, S., Dadam, P., Zhou, X., Pearson, S., Ferscha, A., Bergamaschi, S., Cruz, I.F. (eds.) OTM 2012, Part I. LNCS, vol. 7565, pp. 232–249. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Salnitri, M., Dalpiaz, F., Giorgini, P.: Modeling and verifying security policies in business processes. In: Bider, I., Gaaloul, K., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, H.A., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P. (eds.) BPMDS 2014 and EMMSAD 2014. LNBIP, vol. 175, pp. 200–214. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Salnitri, M., Giorgini, P.: Modeling and verification of ATM security policies with SecBPMN. In: Proceedings of SHPCS’14 (2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Salnitri, M., Giorgini, P.: Transforming socio-technical security requirements in SecBPMN security policies. In: Proceedings of IStar’14 (2014)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wolter, C., Menzel, M., Schaad, A., Miseldine, P., Meinel, C.: Model-driven business process security requirement specification. JSA 55(4), 211–223 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TrentoTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations