评估软件安全标准:系统回顾与比较

W. E. Wong, Tej Gidvani, Alfonso Lopez, Ruizhi Gao, M. Horn
{"title":"评估软件安全标准:系统回顾与比较","authors":"W. E. Wong, Tej Gidvani, Alfonso Lopez, Ruizhi Gao, M. Horn","doi":"10.1109/SERE-C.2014.25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Software safety standards are commonly used to guide the development of safety-critical software systems. However, given the existence of multiple competing standards, it is critical to select the most appropriate one for a given project. We have developed a set of 15 criteria to evaluate each standard in terms of its usage, strengths, and limitations. Five standards are studied, including a NASA Software Safety Standard, an FAA System Safety Handbook, MIL-STD-882D (US Department of Defense), DEF-STAN 00-56 (UK Ministry of Defense), and DO-178B (Commercial avionics). Results of our evaluation suggest that different standards score differently with respect to each evaluation criterion. No standard performs better than others on all the criteria. The lessons learned from software-related accidents in which the standards were involved provide further insights on the pros and cons of using each standard.","PeriodicalId":373062,"journal":{"name":"2014 IEEE Eighth International Conference on Software Security and Reliability-Companion","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating Software Safety Standards: A Systematic Review and Comparison\",\"authors\":\"W. E. Wong, Tej Gidvani, Alfonso Lopez, Ruizhi Gao, M. Horn\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/SERE-C.2014.25\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Software safety standards are commonly used to guide the development of safety-critical software systems. However, given the existence of multiple competing standards, it is critical to select the most appropriate one for a given project. We have developed a set of 15 criteria to evaluate each standard in terms of its usage, strengths, and limitations. Five standards are studied, including a NASA Software Safety Standard, an FAA System Safety Handbook, MIL-STD-882D (US Department of Defense), DEF-STAN 00-56 (UK Ministry of Defense), and DO-178B (Commercial avionics). Results of our evaluation suggest that different standards score differently with respect to each evaluation criterion. No standard performs better than others on all the criteria. The lessons learned from software-related accidents in which the standards were involved provide further insights on the pros and cons of using each standard.\",\"PeriodicalId\":373062,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2014 IEEE Eighth International Conference on Software Security and Reliability-Companion\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2014 IEEE Eighth International Conference on Software Security and Reliability-Companion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/SERE-C.2014.25\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2014 IEEE Eighth International Conference on Software Security and Reliability-Companion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/SERE-C.2014.25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

软件安全标准通常用于指导安全关键软件系统的开发。然而,考虑到存在多个相互竞争的标准,为给定项目选择最合适的标准是至关重要的。我们已经制定了一套15个标准来评估每个标准的用途、优势和局限性。研究了五个标准,包括NASA软件安全标准、FAA系统安全手册、MIL-STD-882D(美国国防部)、DEF-STAN 00-56(英国国防部)和DO-178B(商业航空电子设备)。我们的评估结果表明,不同的标准在每个评估标准方面得分不同。没有哪个标准在所有标准上都比其他标准表现得更好。从涉及这些标准的软件相关事故中吸取的经验教训为使用每种标准的利弊提供了进一步的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Evaluating Software Safety Standards: A Systematic Review and Comparison
Software safety standards are commonly used to guide the development of safety-critical software systems. However, given the existence of multiple competing standards, it is critical to select the most appropriate one for a given project. We have developed a set of 15 criteria to evaluate each standard in terms of its usage, strengths, and limitations. Five standards are studied, including a NASA Software Safety Standard, an FAA System Safety Handbook, MIL-STD-882D (US Department of Defense), DEF-STAN 00-56 (UK Ministry of Defense), and DO-178B (Commercial avionics). Results of our evaluation suggest that different standards score differently with respect to each evaluation criterion. No standard performs better than others on all the criteria. The lessons learned from software-related accidents in which the standards were involved provide further insights on the pros and cons of using each standard.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Diagnosis-Guided Regression Test Refinement CRAXDroid: Automatic Android System Testing by Selective Symbolic Execution Security Analysis of MAC Protocol for Mobile Device Identification Based on PARADIS Protection against Code Obfuscation Attacks Based on Control Dependencies in Android Systems MicroApp: Architecting Web Application for Non-uniform Trustworthiness in Cloud Computing Environment
×
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