Model-driven risk analysis of evolving critical infrastructures | Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Model-driven risk analysis of evolving critical infrastructures

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The protection and security of critical infrastructures are important parts of Homeland Defense. Adequate means for analyzing the security risks of such infrastructures is a prerequisite for properly understanding the security needs and for maintaining appropriate incident preparedness. Risk management is coordinated activities to direct and control an organization with regard to risk, and includes the identification, analysis and mitigation of unacceptable risks. For critical infrastructures consisting of interdependent systems, risk analysis and mitigation is challenging because the overall risk picture may be strongly affected by changes in only a few of the systems. In order to continuously manage risks and maintain an adequate level of protection, there is a need to continuously maintain the validity of risk models while systems change and evolve. This paper addresses these challenges by presenting an approach to model-driven security risk analysis of changing and evolving systems. The approach is a tool-supported method with techniques and modeling support for traceability of system changes to risk models, as well as the explicit modeling of the impact of changes on the current risk picture. The presented artifacts are exemplified and validated in the domain of air traffic management.

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

Access this article

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

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. http://www.sesarju.eu/.

  2. http://www.eclipse.org/.

  3. http://www.eclipse.org/atl/.

  4. http://move.q-e.at/.

References

  • Alberts CJ, Davey J (2004) OCTAVE criteria version 2.0. Technical report CMU/SEI-2001-TR-016. Mellon University, Carnegie

  • Aven T, Sklet S, Vinnem JE (2006) Barrier and operational risk analysis of hydrocarbon releases (BORA-Release). Part I. Method description. J Hazard Mater A 137:681–691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber B, Davey J (1992) The use of the CCTA risk analysis and management methodology CRAMM in health information systems. In: 7th international congress on medical informatics (MEDINFO’92), North-Holland, pp 1589–1593

  • Ben-Gal I (2007) Bayesian networks. In: Ruggeri F, Kenett RS, Faltin FW (eds) Encyclopedia of statistics in quality and reliability. Wiley, New York

  • Brændeland G, Refsdal A, Stølen K (2010) Modular analysis and modelling of risk scenarios with dependencies. J Syst Softw 83(10):1995–2013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breu M, Breu R, Löw S (2011) MoVEing forward: towards an architecture and processes for a living models infrastructure. Int J Adv Life Sci 3(1–2):12–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchmayr M, Kurschl W (2011) A survey on situation-aware ambient intelligence systems. J Ambient Intell Human Comput 2(3):175–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Amicis R, Conti G, Piffer S, Prandi F (2011) Service oriented computing for Ambient Intelligence to support management of transport infrastructures. J Ambient Intell Human Comput 2(3):201–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Maio C, Fenza G, Gaeta M, Loia V, Orciuoli F (2011) A knowledge-based framework for emergency DSS. Knowl Based Syst 24(8):1372–1379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EU (2006) Communication from the Commission on a European programme for critical infrastructure protection. The European Commission, COM (2006) 786 final

  • EUROCONTROL (2003) Air traffic management strategy for the years 2000+

  • EUROCONTROL (2006) Methodology report for the 2005/2012 integrated risk picture for Air Traffic Management in Europe. EUROCONTROL, EEC Technical/Scientific Report No. 2006-041

  • Felici M, Meduri V, Solhaug B, Tedeschi A (2011) Evolutionary risk analysis: Expert judgment. In: 30th international conference on computer safety, reliability, and security (SAFECOMP’11), Springer, LNCS, 6894, pp 99–112

  • Howard RA (1971) Dynamic probabilistic systems, vol I. Markov models. Wiley, New York

  • Howard RA, Matheson JE (2005) Influence diagrams. Decis Anal 2(3):127–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IEC (1990) IEC 61025 Fault Tree Analysis (FTA). International Electrotechnical Commission

  • IEC (1995) IEC 61165 Application of Markov Techniques. International Electrotechnical Commission

  • Innerhofer-Oberperfler F, Breu R (2006) Using an enterprise architecture for IT risk management. In: Information Security South Africa conference (ISSA’06)

  • ISO (2009) ISO 31000 Risk management—principles and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization

  • Ligaarden OS, Lund MS, Refsdal A, Seehusen F, Stølen K (2011) An architectural pattern for enterprise level monitoring tools. In: Maintenance and evolution of service-oriented and cloud-based systems (MESOCA’11). IEEE Computer Society, pp 1–10

  • Ligaarden OS, Refsdal A, Stølen K (2012) Using indicators to monitor security risk in systems of systems: How to capture and measure the impact of service dependencies on the security of provided services. In: IT Security Governance Innovations: Theory and Research, IGI Global, pp 256–292

  • Lund MS, Refsdal A (2013) BRIDGE risk analyzer: a collaborative tool for enhanced risk analysis in crisis situations. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on AmI for Crisis Management, CEUR Workshop Proceedings (to appear)

  • Lund MS, Solhaug B, Stølen K (2010) Evolution in relation to risk and trust management. Computer 43(5):49–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lund MS, Solhaug B, Stølen K (2011a) Model-driven risk analysis—the CORAS approach. Springer, Berlin

  • Lund MS, Solhaug B, Stølen K (2011b) Risk analysis of changing and evolving systems using CORAS. In: Foundations of Security Analysis and Design VI (FOSAD VI), Springer, LNCS 6858, pp 231–274

  • Massacci F, Mylopoulos J, Zannone N (2010) Security requirements engineering: the SI* modeling language and the secure tropos methodology. In: Advances in intelligent information systems, studies in computational intelligence, vol 265, pp 147–174

  • Microsoft (2006) The security risk management guide. Microsoft Solutions for Security and Compliance and Microsoft Security Center of Excellence

  • OMG (2009) OMG Unified Modeling Language (OMG UML), Superstructure. Version 2.2. Object Management Group, OMG Document: formal/2009-02-02

  • OMG (2011a) Business process model and notation (BPMN). Version 2.0. Object Management Group, OMG Document: formal/2011-01-03

  • OMG (2011b) Meta object facility (MOF) 2.0 Query/View/Transformation Specification. Version 1.1. Object Management Group, OMG Document: formal/2011-01-01

  • Peltier TR (2005) Information security risk analysis, 2nd edn. Auerbach Publications

  • Refsdal A, Stølen K (2009) Employing key indicators to provide a dynamic risk picture with a notion of confidence. In: Trust management III. IFIP advances in information and communication technology, vol 300. Springer, Berlin, pp 215–233

  • SecureChange (2011a) Assessment method. SecureChange project deliverable D5.3

  • SecureChange (2011b) Integrability of design modelling solution. SecureChange project deliverable D4.4b

  • SecureChange (2012) Report on the industrial validation of SecureChange solutions. SecureChange project deliverable D1.3

  • Seehusen F, Solhaug B (2012) Tool-supported risk modeling and analysis of evolving critical infrastructures. In: Multidisciplinary research and practice for information systems (CD-ARES 2012), Springer, LNCS 7465, pp 562–577

  • Voirin JL (2008) Method and tools for constrained system architecting. In: 18th annual international symposium of the international council on systems engineering (INCOSE’08). Curran Associates, Inc., pp 775–789

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work has been partially funded by the European Commission via the NESSoS (256980) network of excellence and the RASEN (316853) project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. SINTEF ICT, P.O. Box 124, Blindern, 0314, Oslo, Norway

    Bjørnar Solhaug & Fredrik Seehusen

Authors
  1. Bjørnar Solhaug
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fredrik Seehusen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bjørnar Solhaug.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Solhaug, B., Seehusen, F. Model-driven risk analysis of evolving critical infrastructures. J Ambient Intell Human Comput 5, 187–204 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-013-0179-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-013-0179-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation