A Model-Based Framework for Analyzing the Security of System Architectures

Kit Siu, H. Herencia-Zapana, D. Prince, A. Moitra
{"title":"A Model-Based Framework for Analyzing the Security of System Architectures","authors":"Kit Siu, H. Herencia-Zapana, D. Prince, A. Moitra","doi":"10.1109/RAMS48030.2020.9153607","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We introduce a compositional, model-based framework for modeling, visualizing and analyzing the security of system architectures. This work extends the framework we developed previously for analyzing safety [1]. With this extension, our framework can be used to analyze both safety and security, however this paper focuses on security. The major contribution of this paper is setting the terminology and methodology for building a tree for analyzing the security of a system. Defining precisely the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the tree is very important-just as fault trees are rooted in the theory of probability, we want our tree to be built on solid mathematical foundation. Based on [2] and [3], attack-defense tree is a better representation of a system over attack trees because the latter only captures attack scenarios and does not model the interaction between attacks and the defenses that could be put in place to guard against the attacks. More importantly, security of a system is constantly evolving–as better control measures are put in place, more sophisticated attacks are implemented. Therefore, modeling only attacks without considering the defenses in place is very limiting. Guided by some of the formalisms introduced in [2] [3], we extended their concepts to include guidelines and considerations from DO-326A and DO-356A so that the terminology used in the tree is relevant to the aviation industry. We reference measure theory and order theory to define functions for the quantitative aspects of the tree. We also made sure that the measures were consistent with the intuition of a security design engineer. Finally, we give an example of the modeling language and the attack-defense tree that is automatically generated.","PeriodicalId":360096,"journal":{"name":"2020 Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2020 Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/RAMS48030.2020.9153607","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

We introduce a compositional, model-based framework for modeling, visualizing and analyzing the security of system architectures. This work extends the framework we developed previously for analyzing safety [1]. With this extension, our framework can be used to analyze both safety and security, however this paper focuses on security. The major contribution of this paper is setting the terminology and methodology for building a tree for analyzing the security of a system. Defining precisely the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the tree is very important-just as fault trees are rooted in the theory of probability, we want our tree to be built on solid mathematical foundation. Based on [2] and [3], attack-defense tree is a better representation of a system over attack trees because the latter only captures attack scenarios and does not model the interaction between attacks and the defenses that could be put in place to guard against the attacks. More importantly, security of a system is constantly evolving–as better control measures are put in place, more sophisticated attacks are implemented. Therefore, modeling only attacks without considering the defenses in place is very limiting. Guided by some of the formalisms introduced in [2] [3], we extended their concepts to include guidelines and considerations from DO-326A and DO-356A so that the terminology used in the tree is relevant to the aviation industry. We reference measure theory and order theory to define functions for the quantitative aspects of the tree. We also made sure that the measures were consistent with the intuition of a security design engineer. Finally, we give an example of the modeling language and the attack-defense tree that is automatically generated.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于模型的系统架构安全性分析框架
我们引入了一个组合的、基于模型的框架来对系统架构的安全性进行建模、可视化和分析。这项工作扩展了我们之前开发的用于分析安全性的框架[1]。有了这个扩展,我们的框架可以用来分析安全性和安全性,但本文主要关注安全性。本文的主要贡献是为构建用于分析系统安全性的树设置了术语和方法。精确地定义树的定性和定量方面是非常重要的——正如故障树植根于概率论,我们希望我们的树建立在坚实的数学基础上。基于[2]和[3],攻击-防御树比攻击树更能代表系统,因为后者只捕获攻击场景,而不模拟攻击与防御之间的交互,而这些防御可以用来防范攻击。更重要的是,系统的安全性是不断发展的——随着更好的控制措施到位,更复杂的攻击也会实现。因此,只对攻击建模而不考虑适当的防御是非常有限的。在[2][3]中介绍的一些形式的指导下,我们扩展了它们的概念,包括DO-326A和DO-356A的指导方针和考虑因素,以便树中使用的术语与航空业相关。我们参考测度理论和序理论来定义树的定量方面的函数。我们还确保这些措施与安全设计工程师的直觉一致。最后,给出了建模语言和自动生成的攻击防御树的示例。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Reliability-Equivalent Field Reference Usage and Stress Level When Both are Random for Product with Weibull Life Distribution Selective Maintenance of Multi-Component Systems with Multiple Failure Modes Chronology of Continuous Improvement of the World’s Best FMECA Standard Risk Considerations for Autonomy Software A Life Test Method for Rapidly Obtaining the Degradation Trend of Sensitive Parameters
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1