Biblio

Despite the abundance of information security guidelines, system developers have difficulties implementing technical solutions that are reasonably secure. Security patterns are one possible solution to help developers reuse security knowledge. The challenge is that it takes experts to develop security patterns. To address this challenge, we need a framework to identify and assess patterns and pattern application practices that are accessible to non-experts. In this paper, we narrowly define what we mean by patterns by focusing on requirements patterns and the considerations that may inform how we identify and validate patterns for knowledge reuse. We motivate this discussion using examples from the requirements pattern literature and theory in cognitive psychology.

Information system developers and administrators often overlook critical security requirements and best practices. This may be due to lack of tools and techniques that allow practitioners to tailor security knowledge to their particular context. In order to explore the impact of new security methods, we must improve our ability to study the impact of security tools and methods on software and system development. In this paper, we present early findings of an experiment to assess the extent to which the number and type of examples used in security training stimuli can impact security problem solving. To motivate this research, we formulate hypotheses from analogical transfer theory in psychology. The independent variables include number of problem surfaces and schemas, and the dependent variable is the answer accuracy. Our study results do not show a statistically significant difference in performance when the number and types of examples are varied. We discuss the limitations, threats to validity and opportunities for future studies in this area.

Designing secure cyber-physical systems (CPS) is a particularly difficult task since security vulnerabilities stem not only from traditional cybersecurity concerns, but also physical ones. Many of the standard methods for CPS design make strong and unverified assumptions about the trustworthiness of physical devices, such as sensors. When these assumptions are violated, subtle inter-domain vulnerabilities are introduced into the system model. In this paper we use formal specification of analysis contracts to expose security assumptions and guarantees of analyses from reliability, control, and sensor security domains. We show that this specification allows us to determine where these assumptions are violated, opening the door to malicious attacks. We demonstrate how this approach can help discover and prevent vulnerabilities using a self-driving car example.

Designing secure cyber-physical systems (CPS) is a particularly difficult task since security vulnerabilities stem not only from traditional cybersecurity concerns, but also physical ones. Many of the standard methods for CPS design make strong and unverified assumptions about the trustworthiness of physical devices, such as sensors. When these assumptions are violated, subtle inter-domain vulnerabilities are introduced into the system model. In this paper we use formal specification of analysis contracts to expose security assumptions and guarantees of analyses from reliability, control, and sensor security domains. We show that this specification allows us to determine where these assumptions are violated, opening the door to malicious attacks. We demonstrate how this approach can help discover and prevent vulnerabilities using a self-driving car example.