Reconciling Systems-Theoretic and Component-Centric Methods for Safety and Security Co-analysis

  • William G. TempleEmail author
  • Yue Wu
  • Binbin Chen
  • Zbigniew Kalbarczyk
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10489)


As safety-critical systems increasingly rely on computing, communication, and control, there have been a number of safety and security co-analysis methods put forth to identify, assess, and mitigate risks. However, there is an ideological gap between qualitative system-level methods that focus on control interactions, and more traditional methods based on component failure and/or vulnerability. The growing complexity of cyber-physical and socio-technical systems as well as their interactions with their environments seem to demand a systems-theoretic perspective. Yet, at the same time, more complex threats and failure modes imply a greater need for risk-based analysis to understand and prioritize the large volume of information. In this work we identify promising aspects from two existing safety/security co-analysis methods and outline a vision for reconciling them in a new analysis method.



This work was supported in part by the National Research Foundation (NRF), Prime Minister’s Office, Singapore, under its National Cybersecurity R&D Programme (Award No. NRF2014NCR-NCR001-31) and administered by the National Cybersecurity R&D Directorate. It was also supported in part by the research grant for the Human-Centered Cyber-physical Systems Programme at the Advanced Digital Sciences Center from Singapore’s Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR).


  1. 1.
    IEC 60812: Analysis techniques for system reliability - procedure for failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ISO 26262–1: Road vehicles - functional safety (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chockalingam, S., Hadziosmanovic, D., Pieters, W., Teixeira, A., van Gelder, P.: Integrated safety and security risk assessment methods: a survey of key characteristics and applications. In: International Conference on Critical Information Infrastructures Security, Paris, FR (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    CSIS: Coast guard commandant addresses cybersecurity vulnerabilities on offshore oil rigs. (2015). Accessed 12 Jun 2017
  5. 5. Blog: How the circle line rogue train was caught with data. (2016). Accessed 12 Jun 2017
  6. 6.
    Fovino, I.N., Masera, M., De Cian, A.: Integrating cyber attacks within fault trees. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 94(9), 1394–1402 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Friedberg, I., McLaughlin, K., Smith, P., Laverty, D., Sezer, S.: Stpa-safesec: safety and security analysis for cyber-physical systems. J. Inf. Secur. Appl. (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kriaa, S., Pietre-Cambacedes, L., Bouissou, M., Halgand, Y.: A survey of approaches combining safety and security for industrial control systems. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 139, 156–178 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Macher, G., Höller, A., Sporer, H., Armengaud, E., Kreiner, C.: A combined safety-hazards and security-threat analysis method for automotive systems. In: Koornneef, F., Gulijk, C. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2015. LNCS, vol. 9338, pp. 237–250. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-24249-1_21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Piètre-Cambacédès, L., Bouissou, M.: Cross-fertilization between safety and security engineering. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 110, 110–126 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Raspotnig, C., Karpati, P., Katta, V.: A combined process for elicitation and analysis of safety and security requirements. In: Bider, I., Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P., Wrycza, S. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD -2012. LNBIP, vol. 113, pp. 347–361. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-31072-0_24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sabaliauskaite, G., Mathur, A.P.: Aligning cyber-physical system safety and security. In: Cardin, M.A., Krob, D., Lui, P., Tan, Y., Wood, K. (eds.) Complex Systems Design & Management Asia. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-12544-2_4 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schmittner, C., Gruber, T., Puschner, P., Schoitsch, E.: Security application of failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA). In: Bondavalli, A., Di Giandomenico, F. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2014. LNCS, vol. 8666, pp. 310–325. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-10506-2_21 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schmittner, C., Ma, Z., Puschner, P.: Limitation and improvement of STPA-Sec for safety and security co-analysis. In: Skavhaug, A., Guiochet, J., Schoitsch, E., Bitsch, F. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2016. LNCS, vol. 9923, pp. 195–209. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-45480-1_16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shostack, A., Lambert, S., Ostwald, T., Hernan, S.: Uncover security design flaws using the STRIDE approach. MSDN Mag. (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Young, W., Leveson, N.: Systems thinking for safety and security. In: Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, New Orleans, LA, USA (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Young, W., Leveson, N.: An integrated approach to safety and security based on systems theory. Commun. ACM 57(2), 31–35 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • William G. Temple
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yue Wu
    • 1
  • Binbin Chen
    • 1
  • Zbigniew Kalbarczyk
    • 2
  1. 1.Advanced Digital Sciences Center, Illinois at SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA

Personalised recommendations