Advertisement

On the Use of Semantic Technologies to Model and Control Security, Privacy and Dependability in Complex Systems

  • Andrea Fiaschetti
  • Francesco Lavorato
  • Vincenzo Suraci
  • Andi Palo
  • Andrea Taglialatela
  • Andrea Morgagni
  • Renato Baldelli
  • Francesco Flammini
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6894)

Abstract

In this paper a semantic approach is presented to model and control Security, Privacy and Dependability (SPD) in complex interconnected environment composed by heterogeneous Embedded Systems.

Usually, only the individual properties are locally considered to obtain desired functionalities and this could result in sub-optimal solutions. With the use of modern semantic technologies (like OWL or reasoning engines) it is possible to model not only the individual parameters but also the relations between the different (and dynamically changing) parts of the systems, thus providing enriched knowledge and more useful information that could feed control algorithms.

The model presented in this paper is based on the results obtained during the first phase of the pSHIELD project (conceived and lead by Finmeccanica) and it is focused on a concrete application coming from a critical scenario in railway environment: the monitoring of freight trains transporting hazardous material.

Keywords

Ontology Security Privacy Dependability Model Common Criteria 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation, v3.1 (July 2009) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ding, L., Kolari, P., Ding, Z., Avancha, S.: Using Ontologies in the Semantic Web: A Survey. Ontologies 14, 79–113 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mascardi, V., Locoro, A., Rosso, P.: Automatic Ontology Matching via Upper Ontologies: A Systematic Evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 22(5), 609–623 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Henkel, J., Narayanan, V., Parameswaran, S., Ragel, R.: Security and Dependability of Embedded Systems: A Computer Architects’ Perspective”. In: 22nd International Conference on VLSI Design 2009, pp. 30–33 (2009), doi:10.1109/VLSI.Design.2009.114Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    pSHIELD Technical Annex (June 2010) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dean, M., Schreiber, G.: OWL Web Ontology Language Reference, http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-ref-20040210/
  7. 7.
    McGuinness, D.L., van Harmelen, F.: OWL Web Ontology Language Overview, http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
  8. 8.
    Compton, M., Henson, C., Lefort, L., Neuhaus, H., Sheth, A.: A Survey of the Semantic Specication of Sensors. In: Proc. Semantic Sensor Networks 2009, pp. 17–32 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gaines, B., Shaw, M.: Integrated knowledge acquisition architectures. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 1(1), 9–34 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grosso, E., Eriksson, H., Fergerson, R., Tu, S., Musen, M.: Knowledge modeling at the millennium — the design and evolution of Protégé-2000. In: Proceedings of KAW 1999, Banff, Canada (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Staab, S., Schnurr, H.-P., Studer, R., Sure, Y.: Knowledge processes and ontologies. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16(1) (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Fiaschetti
    • 1
  • Francesco Lavorato
    • 1
  • Vincenzo Suraci
    • 1
  • Andi Palo
    • 1
  • Andrea Taglialatela
    • 2
  • Andrea Morgagni
    • 3
  • Renato Baldelli
    • 3
  • Francesco Flammini
    • 4
  1. 1.University of Rome “La Sapienza”RomaItaly
  2. 2.TRS SpA.Giugliano in Campania (Napoli)Italy
  3. 3.Elsag Datamat S.p.a.RomaItaly
  4. 4.Ansaldo STS S.p.a.NapoliItaly

Personalised recommendations