Abstract
High integrity applications, such as those performing safety or security critical functions, are usually built to conform to standards such RTCA DO-178B [1] or UK Def Stan 00-55 [2]. Typically such standards define ascending levels of criticality each of which requires a different and increasingly onerous level of verification. It is very common to find that real systems contain code of multiple criticality levels. For example, a critical control system may generate a non-critical usage log. Unless segregation can be demonstrated to a very high degree of confidence, there is usually no alternative to verifying all the software components to the standard required by the most critical element, leading to an increase in overall cost. This paper describes the novel use of static analysis to provide a robust segregation of differing criticality levels, thus allowing appropriate verification techniques to be applied at the subprogram level. We call this fine-grained matching of verification level to subprogram criticality smart certification.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
RTCA-EUROCAE: Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification. DO-178B/ED-12B (1992)
Ministry of Defence: Requirements for Safety Related Software in Defence Equipment, Defence Standard 00-55 (August 1997)
Barnes, J.: High Integrity Software - the SPARK Approach to Safety and Security. Addison Wesley, Longman (2003) ISBN 0-321-13616-0
Finnie, G., et al.: SPARK 95 - The SPADE Ada 95 Kernel — Edition 3.1, Praxis Critical Systems (2002), Also available from Praxis High Integrity Systems
Chapman, R., Amey, P.: Industrial Strength Exception Freedom. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGAda 2002 (2002), Also dowloaded from www.sparkada.com
Amey, P., Dobbing, B.: High integrity ravenscar. In: Rosen, J.-P., Strohmeier, A. (eds.) Ada-Europe 2003. LNCS, vol. 2655, pp. 68–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Bergeretti, J.-F., Carré, B.: Information-flow and data-flow analysis of while-programs. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 37–61 (1985), Also available from Praxis High Integrity Systems
King, S., Hammond, J., Chapman, R., Pryor, A.: Is Proof More Cost Effective Than Testing? IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 26(8), 675–686 (2000), Also dowloaded from www.sparkada.com
Amey, P.: A Language for Systems not just Software. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGAda 2001 (2001), Also dowloaded from www.sparkada.com
Chapman, R., Hilton, A.: Enforcing Security and Safety Models with an Information Flow Analysis Tool. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGAda (2004)
Hammond, J.: Specification of SPARK Total Correctness Proofs. Praxis HIS, S.P0468.41.5 (October 2004)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Amey, P., Chapman, R., White, N. (2005). Smart Certification of Mixed Criticality Systems. In: Vardanega, T., Wellings, A. (eds) Reliable Software Technology – Ada-Europe 2005. Ada-Europe 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3555. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11499909_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11499909_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-26286-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31666-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)