Assessing the Understandability and Acceptance of Attack-Defense Trees for Modelling Security Requirements

被引:0
|
作者
Broccia, Giovanna [1 ]
ter Beek, Maurice H. [1 ]
Lafuente, Alberto Lluch [2 ]
Spoletini, Paola [3 ]
Ferrari, Alessio [1 ]
机构
[1] ISTI CNR, Pisa, Italy
[2] DTU, Lyngby, Denmark
[3] Kennesaw State Univ, Kennesaw, GA 30144 USA
关键词
security requirements; Attack-Defense Trees; understandability evaluation; empirical user study; Method Evaluation Model; FOUNDATIONS;
D O I
10.1007/978-3-031-57327-9_3
中图分类号
TP31 [计算机软件];
学科分类号
081202 ; 0835 ;
摘要
Context and Motivation Attack-Defense Trees (ADTs) are a graphical notation used to model and assess security requirements. ADTs are widely popular, as they can facilitate communication between different stakeholders involved in system security evaluation, and they are formal enough to be verified, e.g., with model checkers. Question/Problem While the quality of this notation has been primarily assessed quantitatively, its understandability has never been evaluated despite being mentioned as a key factor for its success. Principal idea/Results In this paper, we conduct an experiment with 25 human subjects to assess the understandability and user acceptance of the ADT notation. The study focuses on performance-based variables and perception-based variables, with the aim of evaluating the relationship between these measures and how they might impact the practical use of the notation. The results confirm a good level of understandability of ADTs. Participants consider them useful, and they show intention to use them. Contribution This is the first study empirically supporting the understandability of ADTs, thereby contributing to the theory of security requirements engineering.
引用
收藏
页码:39 / 56
页数:18
相关论文
共 39 条
  • [1] Attack-defense trees
    Kordy, Barbara
    Mauw, Sjouke
    Radomirovic, Sasa
    Schweitzer, Patrick
    [J]. JOURNAL OF LOGIC AND COMPUTATION, 2014, 24 (01) : 55 - 87
  • [2] Assessing Security of Cryptocurrencies with Attack-Defense Trees: Proof of Concept and Future Directions
    Eisentraut, Julia
    Holzer, Stephan
    Klioba, Katharina
    Kretinsky, Jan
    Pin, Lukas
    Wagner, Alexander
    [J]. THEORETICAL ASPECTS OF COMPUTING, ICTAC 2021, 2021, 12819 : 214 - 234
  • [3] Modelling Attack-defense Trees Using Timed Automata
    Gadyatskaya, Olga
    Hansen, Rene Rydhof
    Larsen, Kim Guldstrand
    Legay, Axel
    Olesen, Mads Chr.
    Poulsen, Danny Bogsted
    [J]. FORMAL MODELING AND ANALYSIS OF TIMED SYSTEMS, FORMATS 2016, 2016, 9884 : 35 - 50
  • [4] Foundations of Attack-Defense Trees
    Kordy, Barbara
    Mauw, Sjouke
    Radomirovic, Sasa
    Schweitzer, Patrick
    [J]. FORMAL ASPECTS OF SECURITY AND TRUST, 2011, 6561 : 80 - +
  • [5] Attack-Defense Trees based Cyber Security Analysis for CPSs
    Ji, Xiang
    Yu, HuiQun
    Fan, GuiSheng
    Fu, WenHao
    [J]. 2016 17TH IEEE/ACIS INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, NETWORKING AND PARALLEL/DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING (SNPD), 2016, : 693 - 698
  • [6] Threat risk analysis for cloud security based on Attack-Defense Trees
    Wang, Ping
    Lin, Hui-Tang
    Wang, Tzu Chia
    Lin, Wen-Hui
    Kuo, Pu-Tsun
    [J]. International Journal of Advancements in Computing Technology, 2012, 4 (17) : 607 - 617
  • [7] Computational Aspects of Attack-Defense Trees
    Kordy, Barbara
    Pouly, Marc
    Schweitzer, Patrick
    [J]. SECURITY AND INTELLIGENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, 2012, 7053 : 103 - +
  • [8] Stochastic-based Semantics Of Attack-Defense Trees For Security Assessment
    Lounis, Karim
    [J]. ELECTRONIC NOTES IN THEORETICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE, 2018, 337 : 135 - 154
  • [9] A quantifiable Attack-Defense Trees model for APT attack
    Fei, Yu
    Ning, Jing
    Jiang, Wenbao
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF 2018 IEEE 3RD ADVANCED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, ELECTRONIC AND AUTOMATION CONTROL CONFERENCE (IAEAC 2018), 2018, : 2303 - 2306
  • [10] Expected Cost Analysis of Attack-Defense Trees
    Eisentraut, Julia
    Kretinsky, Jan
    [J]. QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION OF SYSTEMS (QEST 2019), 2019, 11785 : 203 - 221