Comparing Misuse Case and Mal-Activity Diagrams for Modelling Social Engineering Attacks

P. Kárpáti, G. Sindre, Raimundas Matulevičius
{"title":"Comparing Misuse Case and Mal-Activity Diagrams for Modelling Social Engineering Attacks","authors":"P. Kárpáti, G. Sindre, Raimundas Matulevičius","doi":"10.4018/jsse.2012040103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Understanding the social engineering threat is important in requirements engineering for security-critical information systems. Mal-activity diagrams have been proposed as being better than misuse cases for this purpose, but without any empirical testing. The research question in this study is whether mal-activity diagrams would be more efficient than misuse cases for understanding social engineering attacks and finding prevention measures. After a conceptual comparison of the modelling techniques, a controlled experiment is presented, comparing the efficiency of using the two techniques together with textual descriptions of social engineering attacks. The results were fairly equal, the only significant difference being a slight advantage for mal-activity diagrams concerning perceived ease of use. The study gives new insights into the relative merits of the two techniques, and suggests that the advantage of mal-activity diagrams is smaller than previously assumed. However, more empirical investigations are needed to make detailed conclusions.","PeriodicalId":89158,"journal":{"name":"International journal of secure software engineering","volume":"33 1","pages":"54-73"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"23","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of secure software engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4018/jsse.2012040103","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 23

Abstract

Understanding the social engineering threat is important in requirements engineering for security-critical information systems. Mal-activity diagrams have been proposed as being better than misuse cases for this purpose, but without any empirical testing. The research question in this study is whether mal-activity diagrams would be more efficient than misuse cases for understanding social engineering attacks and finding prevention measures. After a conceptual comparison of the modelling techniques, a controlled experiment is presented, comparing the efficiency of using the two techniques together with textual descriptions of social engineering attacks. The results were fairly equal, the only significant difference being a slight advantage for mal-activity diagrams concerning perceived ease of use. The study gives new insights into the relative merits of the two techniques, and suggests that the advantage of mal-activity diagrams is smaller than previously assumed. However, more empirical investigations are needed to make detailed conclusions.
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
比较误用案例和不良活动图建模社会工程攻击
在安全关键型信息系统的需求工程中,理解社会工程威胁非常重要。对于这个目的,错误活动图被认为比滥用用例更好,但没有任何经验测试。本研究的研究问题是,在理解社会工程攻击和找到预防措施方面,不良活动图是否比滥用案例更有效。在对建模技术进行概念比较之后,提出了一个对照实验,比较了使用这两种技术以及社会工程攻击的文本描述的效率。结果是相当相等的,唯一显著的区别是在感知易用性方面,错误活动图有轻微的优势。这项研究为两种技术的相对优点提供了新的见解,并表明不良活动图的优势比以前假设的要小。然而,需要更多的实证调查才能得出详细的结论。
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
Analysis of Existing Software Cognitive Complexity Measures Risk Centric Activities in Secure Software Development in Public Organisations LDAP Vulnerability Detection in Web Applications A Database of Existing Vulnerabilities to Enable Controlled Testing Studies Goal Modelling for Security Problem Matching and Pattern Enforcement
×
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