Biblio

To help establish a more scientific basis for security science, which will enable the development of fundamental theories and move the field from being primarily reactive to primarily proactive, it is important for research results to be reported in a scientifically rigorous manner. Such reporting will allow for the standard pillars of science, namely replication, meta-analysis, and theory building. In this paper we aim to establish a baseline of the state of scientific work in security through the analysis of indicators of scientific research as reported in the papers from the 2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. To conduct this analysis, we developed a series of rubrics to determine the completeness of the papers relative to the type of evaluation used (e.g. case study, experiment, proof). Our findings showed that while papers are generally easy to read, they often do not explicitly document some key information like the research objectives, the process for choosing the cases to include in the studies, and the threats to validity. We hope that this initial analysis will serve as a baseline against which we can measure the advancement of the science of security.

This paper concerns the role of human errors in the field of Early Risk assessment in Software Project Management. Researchers have recently begun to focus on human errors in early risk assessment in large software projects; statistics show it to be major components of problems in software over 80% of economic losses are attributed to this problem. There has been comparatively diminutive experimental research on the role of human errors in this context, particularly evident at the organizational level, largely because of reluctance to share information and statistics on security issues in online software application. Grounded theory has been employed to investigate the main root of human errors in online security risks as a research methodology. An open-ended question was asked of 103 information security experts around the globe and the responses used to develop a list of human errors causes by open coding. The paper represents a contribution to our understanding of the causes of human errors in information security contexts. It is also one of the first information security research studies of the kind utilizing Strauss and Glaser's grounded theory approaches together, during data collection phases to achieve the required number of participants' responses and is a significant contribution to the field.

It is a fundamental problem to decide how many copies of an unknown mixed quantum state are necessary and sufficient to determine the state. This is the quantum analogue of the problem of estimating a probability distribution given some number of samples. Previously, it was known only that estimating states to error є in trace distance required O(dr2/є2) copies for a d-dimensional density matrix of rank r. Here, we give a measurement scheme (POVM) that uses O( (dr/ δ ) ln(d/δ) ) copies to estimate ρ to error δ in infidelity. This implies O( (dr / є2)· ln(d/є) ) copies suffice to achieve error є in trace distance. For fixed d, our measurement can be implemented on a quantum computer in time polynomial in n. We also use the Holevo bound from quantum information theory to prove a lower bound of Ω(dr/є2)/ log(d/rє) copies needed to achieve error є in trace distance. This implies a lower bound Ω(dr/δ)/log(d/rδ) for the estimation error δ in infidelity. These match our upper bounds up to log factors. Our techniques can also show an Ω(r2d/δ) lower bound for measurement strategies in which each copy is measured individually and then the outcomes are classically post-processed to produce an estimate. This matches the known achievability results and proves for the first time that such “product” measurements have asymptotically suboptimal scaling with d and r.

In highly configurable systems the configuration space is too big for (re-)certifying every configuration in isolation. In this project, we combine software analysis with network analysis to detect which configuration options interact and which have local effects. Instead of analyzing a system as Linux and SELinux for every combination of configuration settings one by one (>102000 even considering compile-time configurations only), we analyze the effect of each configuration option once for the entire configuration space. The analysis will guide us to designs separating interacting configuration options in a core system and isolating orthogonal and less trusted configuration options from this core.