Abstract
In the context of cyber-physical systems, safety and security have been discussed and dealt with separately in the past, since security was not a critical issue of safety and vice versa. They are similar in some points, and it is natural to try dealing with them in parallel or in a unified manner. This paper considers symmetrical treatment of safety and security, especially in identifying possible harms. We compare the result of hazard analysis and threat analysis for a single model of a small IoT system. It shows that identified harms have much overlaps, which indicates the two analyses can be unified.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Now indirect or secondary damage, like financial costs to recover, are ignored.
- 3.
In the table, definitions are modified slightly to save spaces.
- 4.
Of course the target system must be described with its components and functions before analysis.
- 5.
‘F’ and ‘E/L’ mean ‘fail to operate’ and ‘operate early/late‘ respectively.
- 6.
In the upper table, ‘when’ factor is omitted as the lifecycle phase of SoI is fixed in this case study.
References
Scharl, A., Stottlar, K., Kady, R.: Functional Hazard Analysis(FHA) Methodology Tutorial. Technical report NSWCDD-MP-14-00380 (2014)
Derock, A., Hebrard, P., Vallee, F.: Convergence of the latest standards addressing safety and security for information technology. In: Embedded Real Time Software and Systems (ERTSS) (2010)
Chen, B., et al.: Security analysis of urban railway systems: the need for a cyber-physical perspective. In: Koornneef, F., van Gulijk, C. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2015. LNCS, vol. 9338, pp. 277–290. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24249-1_24
Raspotnig, C., Opdahl, A.: Comparing risk identification techniques for safety and security requirements. J. Syst. Softw. 86(4), 1124–1151 (2013)
Raspotnig, C., Karpati, P., Katta, V.: A combined process for elicitation and analysis of safety and security requirements. In: Bider, I., et al. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD -2012. LNBIP, vol. 113, pp. 347–361. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31072-0_24
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). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10506-2_21
Ericson II., C.A.: Hazard Analysis Techniques for System Safety, 2nd edn. Wiley, Hoboken (2016)
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., van Gulijk, C. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2015. LNCS, vol. 9338, pp. 237–250. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24249-1_21
ISO 31000. Risk management - Principles and guidelines (2009)
ISO/IEC 15408. Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation (2017)
ISO/IEC Guide 51. Safety aspects - Guidelines for their inclusion in standards (2014)
JASO TP15002. Guideline for Automotive Information Security Analysis (2015)
Taguchi, K., Souma, D., Nishihara, H.: Safe & sec case pattrens. In: SAFECOMP 2015 Workshops, pp. 27–37 (2015)
Piètre-Cambacédès, L., Chaudet, C.: The SEMA referential framework: avoiding ambiguities in the terms “security” and “safety”. Int. J. Crit. Infrastruct. Prot. 3(2), 55–66 (2010)
Piètre-Cambacédès, L., Bouissou, M.: Cross-fertilization between safety and security engineering. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 110, 110–126 (2013)
Bieber, P., Blanquart, J.-P., Descargues, G., Dulucq, M., Fourastier, Y., Hazane, E., Julien, M., Léonardon, L., Saroulille, G.: Security and safety assurance for aerospace embedded systems. In: Embedded Real-Time Software and Systems (ERTSS) (2012)
RTCA DO-326A. Airworthiness Security Process Specification (2014)
Plósz, S., Schmittner, C., Varga, P.: Combining safety and security analysis for industrial collaborative automation systems. In: Tonetta, S., Schoitsch, E., Bitsch, F. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2017. LNCS, vol. 10489, pp. 187–198. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66284-8_16
Shostack, A.: Threat Modeling: Designing for Security. Wiley, Hoboken (2014)
Stoneburner, G.: Toward a unified security-safety model. Computer 39(8), 96–97 (2006)
Kawanishi, Y., Nishihara, H., Souma, D., Yoshida, H.: Detailed analysis of security evaluation of automotive systems based on JASO TP15002. In: Tonetta, S., Schoitsch, E., Bitsch, F. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2017. LNCS, vol. 10489, pp. 211–224. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66284-8_18
Guo, Z., Zeckzer, D., Liggesmeyer, P., Maeckel, O.: Identification of security-safety requirements for the outdoor robot RAVON using safety analysis techniques. In: ICSEA (2010)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Nishihara, H., Taguchi, K. (2018). Comparing Risk Identification in Hazard Analysis and Threat Analysis. In: Gallina, B., Skavhaug, A., Schoitsch, E., Bitsch, F. (eds) Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. SAFECOMP 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11094. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99229-7_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99229-7_23
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99228-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-99229-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)