Devil’s in the Detail: Through-Life Safety and Security Co-assurance Using SSAF | SpringerLink
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Devil’s in the Detail: Through-Life Safety and Security Co-assurance Using SSAF

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security (SAFECOMP 2019)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 11698))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Regulatory bodies, industry and academia present a plethora of approaches for risk analysis and engineering for safety and security. However, few standards and approaches discuss the management of both safety and security risks. Fewer yet provide detail on how the two attributes interact within a given system. In this paper, the Safety-Security Assurance Framework (SSAF) is presented as a candidate solution to many of the extant challenges of attribute co-assurance. It is a holistic approach, based on the concept of independent co-assurance, that considers both the technical risk impact and the socio-technical impact on assurance. The Framework’s Technical Risk Model (TRM) is applied and evaluated against a case study of an insulin pump. It is argued that SSAF TRM is not only a plausible and practical approach, but also more effective for co-assurance than many existing approaches alone.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
JPY 3498
Price includes VAT (Japan)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
JPY 6634
Price includes VAT (Japan)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
JPY 8293
Price includes VAT (Japan)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Industrial experience at BAE Systems, research literature, and workshop results.

  2. 2.

    Social science approaches: Grounded Theory [10] and Yin-style Case Studies [37].

References

  1. AlTawy, R., Youssef, A.M.: Security tradeoffs in cyber physical systems: a case study survey on implantable medical devices. IEEE Access 4, 959–979 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation: AAMI TIR57:2016 Principles for medical device security - Risk management. Technical report, June 2016

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bostrom, R.P., Heinen, J.S.: MIS problems and failures: a socio-technical perspective part I: the causes. MIS Q. 1, 17–32 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Camara, C., Peris-Lopez, P., Tapiador, J.E.: Security and privacy issues in implantable medical devices: a comprehensive survey. J. Biomed. Inform. 55, 272–289 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen, Y., Lawford, M., Wang, H., Wassyng, A.: Insulin pump software certification. In: Gibbons, J., MacCaull, W. (eds.) FHIES 2013. LNCS, vol. 8315, pp. 87–106. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-53956-5_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Despotou, G., Alexander, R., Kelly, T.: Addressing challenges of hazard analysis in systems of systems. In: 2009 3rd Annual IEEE Systems Conference, pp. 167–172. IEEE (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Firesmith, D.G.: Common concepts underlying safety security and survivability engineering. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh PA, Technical report (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Food and Drug Administration (FDA): Infusion Pumps Total Product Life Cycle: Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff. Technical report, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, December 2014

    Google Scholar 

  9. Friedberg, I., McLaughlin, K., Smith, P., Laverty, D., Sezer, S.: STPA-SafeSec: safety and security analysis for cyber-physical systems. J. Inf. Secur. Appl. 34, 183–196 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L.: Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Routledge, New York (2017)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Hawkins, R., Habli, I., Kelly, T.: Principled construction of software safety cases. In: SAFECOMP 2013-Workshop SASSUR (Next Generation of System Assurance Approaches for Safety-Critical Systems) of the 32nd International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability and Security (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hawkins, R., Kelly, T., Knight, J., Graydon, P.: A new approach to creating clear safety arguments. In: Dale, C., Anderson, T. (eds.) Advances in Systems Safety, pp. 3–23. Springer, London (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-133-2_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Hu, R., Li, C.: The design of an intelligent insulin pump. In: 2015 4th International Conference on Computer Science and Network Technology (ICCSNT), vol. 1, pp. 736–739. IEEE (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  14. ISO 14971:2007 Medical devices - Application of risk management to medical devices. Standard, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH, September 2007

    Google Scholar 

  15. ISO/IEC 27001:2013 Information technology - Security techniques - Information security management systems - Requirements. Standard, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH, October 2013

    Google Scholar 

  16. Johnson, N., Kelly, T.: Safety-security assurance framework (SSAF) in practice. In: 37th International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, & Security SAFECOMP2018 (Abstract Paper) (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Johnson, N., Kelly, T.: An assurance framework for independent co-assurance of safety and security. In: Muniak, C. (ed.) Journal of System Safety. International System Safety Society (January 2019), presented at: the 36th International System Safety Conference (ISSC), Arizona, USA, August 2018

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jones, L.G., Lattanze, A.J.: Using the architecture tradeoff analysis method to evaluate a wargame simulation system: a case study. Technical report, Carnegie Mellon University; Software Engineering Institute (SEI), Pittsburg, PA, USA (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kazman, R., Klein, M., Barbacci, M., Longstaff, T., Lipson, H., Carriere, J.: The architecture tradeoff analysis method. In: Proceedings Fourth IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (Cat. No. 98EX193), pp. 68–78. IEEE (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kordy, B., Mauw, S., Radomirović, S., Schweitzer, P.: Foundations of attack–defense trees. In: Degano, P., Etalle, S., Guttman, J. (eds.) FAST 2010. LNCS, vol. 6561, pp. 80–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19751-2_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Lange, R., Burger, E.W.: Long-term market implications of data breaches, not. J. Inf. Priv. Secur. 13(4), 186–206 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lazenbatt, A., Elliott, N., et al.: How to recognise a ‘quality’ grounded theory research study. Aust. J. Adv. Nurs. 22(3), 48 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Leveson, N.G.: A new approach to hazard analysis for complex systems. In: International Conference of the System Safety Society (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Li, C., Raghunathan, A., Jha, N.K.: Hijacking an insulin pump: security attacks and defenses for a diabetes therapy system. In: 2011 IEEE 13th International Conference on e-Health Networking, Applications and Services, pp. 150–156. IEEE (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Luckett, P., McDonald, J.T., Glisson, W.B.: Attack-graph threat modeling assessment of ambulatory medical devices. In: Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Macher, G., Sporer, H., Berlach, R., Armengaud, E., Kreiner, C.: SAHARA: a security-aware hazard and risk analysis method. In: Proceedings of the 2015 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition, pp. 621–624. EDA Consortium (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  27. OMG Unified Modeling Language. Standard, Object Management Group, December 2017. https://www.omg.org/spec/UML/About-UML/

  28. Piggin, R.: Cybersecurity of medical devices: addressing patient safety and the security of patient health information. Technical report, BSI Group ANZ Pty Ltd. (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Radcliffe, J., Beardsley, T.: R7–2016-07: Multiple vulnerabilities in animas OneTouch ping insulin pump. Technical report, Rapid7, October 2016. https://blog.rapid7.com/2016/10/04/r7-2016-07-multiple-vulnerabilities-in-animas-onetouch-ping-insulin-pump/

  30. Rathore, H., Mohamed, A., Al-Ali, A., Du, X., Guizani, M.: A review of security challenges, attacks and resolutions for wireless medical devices. In: 2017 13th International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC), pp. 1495–1501. IEEE (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  31. RTCA: RTCA DO-326: Revision A Airworthiness Security Process Specification. Technical report, Washington, DC, USA, August 2014

    Google Scholar 

  32. SAE International: SAE ARP4754: Rev A Guidelines for Development of Civil Aircraft and Systems. Technical report, December 2010

    Google Scholar 

  33. U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA): Advisory (ICSMA-16-279-01): Animas OneTouch Ping insulin pump vulnerabilities. Technical report, National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) Industrial Control Systems, October 2016

    Google Scholar 

  34. U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA): Advisory (ICSMA-18-219-02): Medtronic MiniMed 508 insulin pump. Technical report, National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) Industrial Control Systems, August 2018. https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/advisories/ICSMA-18-219-02

  35. U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA): Postmarket Management of Cybersecurity in Medical Devices: Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff. Technical report, Center for Devices & Radiological Health, December 2016

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wu, F., Eagles, S.: Cybersecurity for medical device manufacturers: ensuring safety and functionality. Biomed. Instrum. Technol. 50(1), 23–34 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Sage publications, Thousand Oaks (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Young, W., Leveson, N.G.: An integrated approach to safety and security based on systems theory. Commun. ACM 57(2), 31–35 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Zhang, Y., Jones, P.L., Jetley, R.: A hazard analysis for a generic insulin infusion pump. J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 4(2), 263–283 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Research and development of SSAF supported by the University of York, the Assuring Autonomy International Programme (AAIP), and BAE Systems. UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Award Ref EPSRC iCASE 1515047.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of York, York, UK

    Nikita Johnson & Tim Kelly

Authors
  1. Nikita Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tim Kelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikita Johnson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

    Alexander Romanovsky

  2. Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland

    Elena Troubitsyna

  3. Thales Deutschland GmbH, Ditzingen, Germany

    Friedemann Bitsch

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Johnson, N., Kelly, T. (2019). Devil’s in the Detail: Through-Life Safety and Security Co-assurance Using SSAF. In: Romanovsky, A., Troubitsyna, E., Bitsch, F. (eds) Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. SAFECOMP 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11698. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26601-1_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26601-1_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-26600-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-26601-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation