Software Testing is Necessary But Not Sufficient for Software Trustworthiness

  • Mitra Nami
  • Witold Suryn
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 320)


In the past decades, software verification generally was about 40-50% of the total development costs of any software system [12], yet few users are satisfied with reliability of their software. Even though the quality assurance budgets of software makers are increasing, program failures with possible data loss happens quite often. This paper investigates the reasons why software testing is not enough for assuring software trustworthiness and is a follow up of previous study on finding a way to model software trustworthiness by using Finite State Machine (FSM) and scenarios [1]. The approach uses the novel behavioristic model for verifying software trustworthiness based on scenarios of interactions between the software and its users and environment presented in our previous paper [1]. The approach consists of interactions of examples or counterexamples of desired behavior and supports incremental changes in requirements or scenarios.


software trustworthiness quality security 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Nami, M., Suryn, W.: From Requirements to Software Trustworthiness using Scenarios and Finite State Machine, Montreal (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roscoe, A.W.: The Theory and Practice of Concurrency. Prentice-Hall, Pearson (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hsia, P., et al.: Formal Approach to Scenario Analysis. IEEE Software 11(2), 33–41 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mäkinen, E., Systä, T.: An Interactive Approach for Synthesizing UML Statechart Diagrams from Sequence Diagrams. In: Proceedings of OOPSLA 2000 Workshop: Scenario Based Round-trip Engineering (October 2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Behrens, H.: Requirements Analysis and Prototyping using Scenarios and Statecharts. In: Proceedings of ICSE 2002 Workshop: Scenarios and State Machines: Models, Algorithms, and Tools (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Oncina, J., Garcia, P.: Regular Languages in Polynomial Update Time. In: Reze de la Blanca, N., Sanfeliu, A., Vidal, E. (eds.) Pattern Recognition and Image Analysis, pp. 49–61. World Scientific (1992)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dupont, P.: Incremental Regular Inference, Grammatical Inference. Learning Syntax Form Sentences, 222–237 (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Damas, C., et al.: Generating Annotated Behavior Models from End-User Scenarios. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 31(12) (December 2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eshuis, R.: Symbolic model checking of UML activity diagrams. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 15(1), 1–38 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Magee, J., Kramer, J.: Concurrency: State Models & Java Programs. John Wiley & Sons (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garavel, H., Mateescu, R., Lang, F., Serwe, W.: CADP 2006: A Toolbox for the Construction and Analysis of Distributed Processes. In: Damm, W., Hermanns, H. (eds.) CAV 2007. LNCS, vol. 4590, pp. 158–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pressman, R.S.: Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill (1992)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dijkstra, E.W., Dahl, O.J., Hoare, C.A.R.: Structured programming. Academic Press (1972)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wegener, J., Pitschinetz, R.: TESSY – Yet Another Computer-Aided Software Testing Tool? In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Software Testing, Analysis and Review, Bruxelles, Belgium (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goodenough, J.B., Gerhart, S.L.: Toward a theory of test data selection. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 1(2), 156–173 (1975)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hayhurst, K.J., Veerhusen, D.S., Chilenski, J.J., Rierson, L.K.: A practical tutorial on modified condition/decision coverage. Technical Report NASA/TM-2001-210876, NASA (May 2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Applied Software Measurement, Capers Jones (1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Voas, J.: Software Testing Past, Present, and Future,
  19. 19.
    Whittle, J., Schumann, J.: Generating Statechart Designs From Scenarios. In: Proceedings of OOPSLA 2000 Workshop: Scenario Based Round-trip Engineering, October 2000, Tampere University of Technology, Software Systems Laboratory, Report 20 (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hertzum, M.: The importance of trust in software engineers’ assessment and choice of information sources. Information and Organization 12, 1–18 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Eshuis, R., Wieringa, R.: Requirements Level Semantics for UML Statecharts. In: Proceedings of Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems IV, Stanford, California (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Uchitel, S., Kramer, J.: A Workbench for Synthesizing Behavior Models from Scenarios. In: Proc. of the 23rd IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2001), Toronto, Canada (May 2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dupont, P.: Incremental Regular Inference, Grammatical Inference. Learning Syntax Form Sentences, 222–237 (1996)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rolland, C., et al.: A proposal for a scenario classification framework. Requirements Engineering Journal 3(1), 23–47 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wilkie, I., et al.: UML Action Specification Language (ASL) Reference Guide (2001),

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mitra Nami
    • 1
  • Witold Suryn
    • 1
  1. 1.École de technologie supérieureMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations