Balancing Product and Process Assurance for Evolving Security Systems

Balancing Product and Process Assurance for Evolving Security Systems

Wolfgang Raschke (Institute for Technical Informatics, Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria), Massimiliano Zilli (Institute for Technical Informatics, Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria), Philip Baumgartner (NXP Semiconductors Austria GmbH, Gratkorn, Austria), Johannes Loinig (NXP Semiconductors Austria GmbH, Gratkorn, Austria), Christian Steger (Institute for Technical Informatics, Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria) and Christian Kreiner (Institute for Technical Informatics, Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria)
Copyright: © 2015 |Pages: 29
DOI: 10.4018/ijsse.2015010103
OnDemand PDF Download:
List Price: $37.50


At present, security-related engineering usually requires a big up-front design (BUFD) regarding security requirements and security design. In addition to the BUFD, at the end of the development, a security evaluation process can take up to several months. In today's volatile markets customers want to be able to influence the software design during the development process. Agile processes have proven to support these demands. Nevertheless, there is a clash between traditional security design and evaluation processes. In this paper, the authors propose an agile security evaluation method for the Common Criteria standard. This method is complemented by an implementation of a change detection analysis for model-based security requirements. This system facilitates the agile security evaluation process to a high degree. However, the application of the proposed evaluation method is limited by several constraints. The authors discuss these constraints and show how traditional certification schemes could be extended to better support modern industrial software development processes.
Article Preview

1. Introduction

Traditional security engineering requires a big up-front design (BUFD) which includes the following engineering tasks: threat analysis, security requirements elicitation, security design and (security) architecture. Reviews ensure the consistency of these artifacts. In highly secure systems, the consistency of the security requirements and the security architecture is formally verified. Altogether, this constitutes a huge effort, before the implementation is even started upon. After the security design, the system is implemented according to requirements and design. Thereafter, evidence of security has to be provided in the form of documentation. This documentation is then delivered to the evaluation body. The evaluation may take several months. If the feedback from the evaluator is negative, the system has to be re-designed. If this is the case, then a large amount of time and effort would be required. Moreover, the pressure to deliver the product to market is high. Summarizing, the challenges involved in security engineering are: early validation and time-to-market. The software industry came up with the trend of agile development practices (Cockburn, 2006), such as XP, Scrum, and Test-driven development. Agile methods focus on customer interaction and incremental software development. Feedback loops, such as customer on-site, pair programming and refactoring tend to minimize errors. Generally, agile processes react flexibly to changing customer requirements. In contrast, traditional processes tend to fulfill contractually specified requirements and are inflexible, by nature. Agile processes have demonstrated a high success rate in several software projects (Cohn, 2010). Unfortunately, agile methods have not been well studied for high-level security engineering and evaluation. Case studies and success stories are lacking, especially for the Common Criteria standard (Common Criteria, 2012). Despite the fact that traditional security engineering seems to counter agile practices (Beznosov, 2004), we think that a synthesis of both is not contradictory, if well considered.

In the background section we provide material, we think helps to understand the following sections. As we do not claim a contribution in this section, we want to keep this section as simple as possible.

Our contribution is the analysis of two evaluation approaches, which are possibly suitable for an agile security evaluation. Both evaluation approaches are compared and one of them is then proposed for an agile security evaluation. In an agile security evaluation, all security properties of the system are kept in a model, which is capable of creating documentation for an evaluation round. In the agile evaluation approach only the increment of the model has to be reviewed. This has several benefits: the entire system does not have to be reviewed in each iteration. The evaluator starts with a small system and gains experience as the system matures. Early feedback enables an early, and thus more inexpensive, correction of the system. With elaborated algorithms we are able to create a difference model for all changes during an increment. Additionally, we demonstrate the feasibility of automation by customizing existing open source software.

The presented agile security evaluation approach is applicable under certain constraints. We discuss those constraints, which are fulfilled in a large portion of today’s industrial software projects. However, the existing certification scheme could be enhanced in order to better support agile development processes. As a contribution, we propose to view security assurance under two perspectives: structural product assurance and behavioral process assurance. Both of the mentioned assurance paradigms are well established in other domains, such as automotive safety engineering (Habli, 2006; Habli, 2007; Hawkins, 2010). These paradigms span a two dimensional assurance space. The concept of such an assurance space could provide a more flexible certification scheme that could support traditional and agile development processes.

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Open Access Articles: Forthcoming
Volume 8: 4 Issues (2017): 2 Released, 2 Forthcoming
Volume 7: 4 Issues (2016)
Volume 6: 4 Issues (2015)
Volume 5: 4 Issues (2014)
Volume 4: 4 Issues (2013)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (2012)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (2011)
Volume 1: 4 Issues (2010)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing