Advertisement

Abstract

Given the huge industrial take-up of UML, it has become less feasible to invent entirely new methods and modeling languages to address systems development challenges not covered by that language. Instead, the most fruitful way to go often seems to be to adapt UML to address such special challenges. In the security and safety domain, various such adaptations have been proposed. In this paper we look at misuse cases, originally proposed for security, with the purpose of investigating whether they are also useful for safety, and to what extent they can complement existing diagrammatic modeling techniques in the safety domain. Misuse cases is thus compared to several traditional techniques for safety analysis, such as fault trees, cause-consequence diagrams, HazOp, and FME(C)A, identifying strengths and weaknesses of either.

Keywords

Safety Concern Safety Analysis Fault Tree Requirement Engineer Malicious Attack 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    D.G. Firesmith, Engineering Safety Requirements, Safety Constraints, and Safety-Critical Requirements, Journal of Object Technology, 3(3), 27–42 (2004).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N.G. Leveson, Safeware: System Safety and Computers (Addison-Wesley, Boston, 1995).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R.R. Lutz, Software Engineering for Safety: A Roadmap, in: The Future of Software Engineering, edited by A. Finkelstein (ACM Press, New York, 2000), pp. 213–226.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Sindre and A.L. Opdahl, Eliciting Security Requirements with Misuse Cases, Requirements Engineering, 10(1), 34–44 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    I.F. Alexander, Initial Industrial Experience of Misuse Cases in Trade-Off Analysis, in: 10th Anniversary IEEE Joint International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE’02), Essen, Germany, 9–13 Sep, edited by K. Pohl (IEEE, 2002).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    I.F. Alexander, Misuse Cases, Use Cases with Hostile Intent, IEEE Software, 20 58–66 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    L.L. Constantine and L.A.D. Lockwood, Software for Use: A Practical Guide to the Models and Methods of Usage-Centered Design (ACM Press, New York, 1999).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Zhou and T. Stålhane, A Framework for Early Robustness Assessment, in: 8th IASTED Conference on Software Engineering and Application, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 8–10 Nov, edited by M.H. Hamza (Acta Press, 2004).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    K. Allenby and T. Kelly, Deriving Safety Requirements Using Scenarios, in: Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE’01), Toronto, Canada, edited by B. Nuseibeh, and S. Easterbrook (IEEE, 2001), pp. 228–235.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H.-K. Kim and Y.-K. Chung, Automatic Translation from Requirements Model into Use Cases Modeling on UML, in: Computational Science and Its Applications (ICCSA’05), Singapore, 9–12 May, Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 3482, edited by O. Gervasi, M.L. Gavrilova, V. Kumar, A. Laganà, H.P. Lee, Y. Mun, D. Taniar, and C.J.K. Tan (Springer-Verlag, 2005), pp. 769–777.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    SAE, Guidelines and Methods for Conducting the Safety Assessment Process on Civil Airborne Systems and Equipment, Society of Automotive Engineers, Technical report, ARP4761, 1996 (unpublished).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    F. Redmill, M. Chudleigh, and J. Catmur, System Safety: HAZOP and Software HAZOP (Wiley, Chichester, UK, 1999).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Ebnenasir, B.H.C. Cheng, and S. Konrad, Use Case-Based Modeling and Analysis of Failsafe Fault-Tolerance, in: 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE’06), St.Louis, USA, 11–15 Sep, edited by M. Glinz (IEEE, 2006), pp. 343–344.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    B.A. Gran, R. Fredriksen, and A.P.-J. Thunem, An Approach for Model-Based Risk Assessment, in: Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security, 23rd International Conference, SAFECOMP 2004, Potsdam, Germany, 21–24 Sep, Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 3219, edited by M. Heisel, P. Liggesmeyer, and S. Wittmann (Springer, 2004), pp. 311–324.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Jürjens, Developing Safety-Critical Systems with UML, in: The Sixth International Conference on The Unified Modeling Language (UML’03), San Francisco, USA, 20–24 Oct, Lecture Notes on Computer Science Vol. 2863, edited by P. Stevens, J. Whittle, and G. Booch (Springer-Verlag, 2003), pp. 144–159.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    K. Berkenkötter, U. Hannemann, and J. Peleska, HYBRIS-Efficient Specification and Analysis of Hybrid Systems-Part III: RCSD-A UML 2.0 Profile for the Railway Control System Domain (Draft Version), Univ. Bremen, Germany, 2006 (unpublished).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Jürjens, UMLsec: Extending UML for Secure Systems Development, in: The Unified Modeling Language, 5th International Conference (UML 2002), Dresden, Germany, Sep 30–Oct 4, Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 2460, edited by J. M. Jezequel, H. Haussmann, and S. Cook (Springer, 2002), pp. 412–425.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    T. Lodderstedt, D. Basin, and J. Doser, SecureUML: A UML-Based Modeling Language for Model-Driven Security, in: The Unified Modeling Language, 5th International Conference (UML 2002), Dresden, Germany, Sep 30–Oct 4, Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 2460, edited by J.M. Jezequel, H. Haussmann, and S. Cook (Springer, 2002), pp. 426–441.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    C. Rolland and N. Prakash, A proposal for context-specific method engineering, in: IFIP TC8, WG8.1/8.2 working conference on Method engineering: principles of method construction and tool support, Atlanta, edited by S. Brinkkemper, K. Lyytinen, and R.J. Welke (Chapman & Hall, 1996), pp. 191–208.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    S. Brinkkemper, M. Saeki, and F. Harmsen, Assembly techniques for method engineering, in: 10th international conference on advanced information systems engineering (CAiSE’98), Pisa, Italy, Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 1413, edited by B. Pernici, and C. Thanos (Springer, 1998).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    I. Mirbel and J. Ralyté, Situational method engineering: combining assembly-based and roadmap-driven approaches, Requirements Engineering, 11(1), 58–78 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guttorm Sindre
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept of Computer and Info ScienceNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations