Skip to main content

Exploring How Component Factors and Their Uncertainty Affect Judgements of Risk in Cyber-Security

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Critical Information Infrastructures Security (CRITIS 2019)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNSC,volume 11777))

Abstract

Subjective judgements from experts provide essential information when assessing and modelling threats in respect to cyber-physical systems. For example, the vulnerability of individual system components can be described using multiple factors, such as complexity, technological maturity, and the availability of tools to aid an attack. Such information is useful for determining attack risk, but much of it is challenging to acquire automatically and instead must be collected through expert assessments. However, most experts inherently carry some degree of uncertainty in their assessments. For example, it is impossible to be certain precisely how many tools are available to aid an attack. Traditional methods of capturing subjective judgements through choices such as high, medium or low do not enable experts to quantify their uncertainty. However, it is important to measure the range of uncertainty surrounding responses in order to appropriately inform system vulnerability analysis. We use a recently introduced interval-valued response-format to capture uncertainty in experts’ judgements and employ inferential statistical approaches to analyse the data. We identify key attributes that contribute to hop vulnerability in cyber-systems and demonstrate the value of capturing the uncertainty around these attributes. We find that this uncertainty is not only predictive of uncertainty in the overall vulnerability of a given system component, but also significantly informs ratings of overall component vulnerability itself. We propose that these methods and associated insights can be employed in real world situations, including vulnerability assessments of cyber-physical systems, which are becoming increasingly complex and integrated into society, making them particularly susceptible to uncertainty in assessment.

Supported by EPSRC’s EP/P011918/1 grant and by the UK National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    CESG has since been replaced by the NCSC (National Cyber Security Centre).

References

  1. Aven, T., Renn, O.: On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain. J. Risk Res. 12(1), 1–11 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Black, P.E., Scarfone, K., Souppaya, M.: Cyber security metrics and measures. In: Wiley Handbook of Science and Technology for Homeland Security, pp. 1–15 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  3. CESG: Extract from HMG IA Standard No. 1 Business Impact Level Tables. CESG (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Choi, H.H., Cho, H.N., Seo, J.W.: Risk assessment methodology for underground construction projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 130(2), 258–272 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Duan, Y., Cai, Y., Wang, Z., Deng, X.: A novel network security risk assessment approach by combining subjective and objective weights under uncertainty. Appl. Sci. 8(3) (2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/app8030428, http://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/8/3/428

  6. Feng, N., Li, M.: An information systems security risk assessment model under uncertain environment. Appl. Soft Comput. 11(7), 4332–4340 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fielder, A., Konig, S., Panaousis, E., Schauer, S., Rass, S.: Uncertainty in cyber security investments. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.05893 (2017)

  8. FIRST: Cvss v3.0 specification document. https://www.first.org/cvss/specification-document

  9. Gao, H., Zhu, J., Li, C.: The analysis of uncertainty of network security risk assessment using Dempster-Shafer theory. In: 2008 12th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design, pp. 754–759. IEEE (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gardner, D.: Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear. Random House, New York (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hubbard, D.W., Seiersen, R.: How to Measure Anything in Cybersecurity Risk. Wiley, New York (2016)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Kahneman, D., Slovic, S.P., Slovic, P., Tversky, A.: Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1982)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Koubatis, A., Schonberger, J.Y.: Risk management of complex critical systems. Int. J. Crit. Infrastruct. 1(2–3), 195–215 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Linda, O., Manic, M., Vollmer, T., Wright, J.: Fuzzy logic based anomaly detection for embedded network security cyber sensor. In: 2011 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Cyber Security (CICS), pp. 202–209. IEEE (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mell, P., Scarfone, K., Romanosky, S.: A complete guide to the common vulnerability scoring system version 2.0. In: Published by FIRST-Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams, vol. 1, p. 23 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Miller, S., Appleby, S., Garibaldi, J.M., Aickelin, U.: Towards a more systematic approach to secure systems design and analysis. Int. J. Secur. Softw. Eng. (IJSSE) 4(1), 11–30 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Miller, S., Wagner, C., Aickelin, U., Garibaldi, J.M.: Modelling cyber-security experts’ decision making processes using aggregation operators. Comput. Secur. 62, 229–245 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Munir, R., Disso, J.P., Awan, I., Mufti, M.R.: A quantitative measure of the security risk level of enterprise networks. In: 2013 Eighth International Conference on Broadband and Wireless Computing, Communication and Applications, pp. 437–442. IEEE (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sikos, L.F.: Handling uncertainty and vagueness in network knowledge representation for cyberthreat intelligence. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE), pp. 1–6. IEEE (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Slovic, P.: The Perception of Risk. Routledge, Abingdon (2016)

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zack Ellerby .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Ellerby, Z., McCulloch, J., Wilson, M., Wagner, C. (2020). Exploring How Component Factors and Their Uncertainty Affect Judgements of Risk in Cyber-Security. In: Nadjm-Tehrani, S. (eds) Critical Information Infrastructures Security. CRITIS 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11777. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37670-3_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37670-3_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-37669-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-37670-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics