Skip to main content

Criteria for the Analysis of Gaps and Limitations of V&V Methods for Safety- and Security-Critical Systems

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. SAFECOMP 2022 Workshops (SAFECOMP 2022)

Abstract

As society increasingly relies on safety- and security- critical systems, the need for confirming their dependability becomes essential. Adequate V&V (verification and validation) methods must be employed, e.g., for system testing. When selecting and using the methods, it is important to analyze their possible gaps and limitations, such as scalability issues. However, and as we have experienced, common, explicitly defined criteria are seldom used for such analyses. This results in analyses that consider different aspects and to a different extent, hindering their comparison and thus the comparison of the V&V methods. As a solution, we present a set of criteria for the analysis of gaps and limitations of V&V methods for safety- and security-critical systems. The criteria have been identified in the scope of the VALU3S project. Sixty-two people from 33 organizations agreed upon the use of nine criteria: functionality, accuracy, scalability, deployment, learning curve, automation, reference environment, cost, and standards. Their use led to more homogeneous and more detailed analyses when compared to similar previous efforts. We argue that the proposed criteria can be helpful to others when having to deal with similar activities.

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
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

References

  1. Agirre, J., et al.: The VALU3S ECSEL project: verification and validation of automated systems safety and security. Microprocess. Microsyst. 87, 104349 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aguirre, J., et al.: Multidimensional framework for characterizing verification and validation of automated systems. In: EDCC (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Amalthea4public project: D3.1 - Analysis of state of the art V&V techniques (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  4. AMASS project: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/692474

  5. AMASS project: D1.7 - AMASS solution benchmarking (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  6. AMASS project: D3.1 - Baseline and requirements for architecture-driven assurance (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bauer, T., et al.: Cross-domain modelling of verification and validation workflows in the large scale European research project VALU3S. In: Orailoglu, A., Jung, M., Reichenbach, M. (eds) Embedded Computer Systems: Architectures, Modeling, and Simulation. SAMOS 2021. LNCS, vol. 13227. Springer, Cham (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04580-6_25

  8. de la Vara, J.L., et al.: A proposal for the classification of methods for verification and validation of safety, cybersecurity, and privacy of automated systems. In: QUATIC (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  9. ElasTest project: D7.3 - Public demonstrator artifacts (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fenton, N.E., Pfleeger, S.L.: Software Metrics - A Rigorous and Practical Approach, 3rd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Folkesson, P., Ayatolahi, F., Sangchoolie, B., Vinter, J., Islam, M., Karlsson, J.: Back-to-back fault injection testing in model-based development. In: Koornneef, F., van Gulijk, C. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2015. LNCS, vol. 9337, pp. 135–148. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24255-2_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Grinschgl, J., et al.: Efficient fault emulation using automatic pre-injection memory access analysis. In: 2012 IEEE International SOC Conference, pp. 277–282. Niagara Falls, NY (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  13. INCOSE: Guide for Writing Requirements (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  14. iRel40 project: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/876659

  15. ISO: ISO/IEC/IEEE 24765: Systems and software engineering - Vocabulary (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kan, S.: Metrics and Models in Software Quality Engineering, 2nd edn. Addison Wesley, Boston (2002)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Kramer, A., Legeard, B.: Model-Based Testing Essentials-Guide to the ISTQB Certified Model-Based Tester: Foundation Level. Wiley, Hoboken (2016)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Ma, T., Ali, S., Yue, T.: Testing self-healing cyber-physical systems under uncertainty with reinforcement learning: an empirical study. Empir. Softw. Eng. 26(3), 1–54 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-021-09941-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Miller, L., et al.: Guidelines for the verification and validation of expert system software and conventional software. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Moreno, V., Génova, G., Parra, E., Fraga, A.: Application of machine learning techniques to the flexible assessment and improvement of requirements quality. Softw. Qual. J. 28(4), 1645–1674 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-020-09511-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Natella, R., et al.: Assessing dependability with software fault injection: a survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 48(3), 44 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. OPENCOSS project: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/289011

  23. OPENCOSS project: D1.3 - Evaluation framework and quality metrics (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Oxford UK Dictionary: Method. https://www.lexico.com/definition/method (2021)

  25. Panesar-Walawege, R.K., et al.: Supporting the verification of compliance to safety standards via model-driven engineering: approach, tool-support and empirical validation. Inf. Softw. Technol. 55(3), 836–864 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Parra, E., et al.: Advances in artefact quality analysis for safety-critical systems. In: 30th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE) (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Roza, M.: Verification, validation and uncertainty quantification methods and techniques. NATO (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Svenningsson, R., Vinter, J., Eriksson, H., Törngren, M.: MODIFI: a MODel-implemented fault injection tool. In: Schoitsch, E. (ed.) SAFECOMP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6351, pp. 210–222. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15651-9_16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. VALU3S project: D3.1 - V&V methods for SCP evaluation of automated systems (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  30. VALU3S project: D3.3 - Identified gaps and limitations of the V&V methods listed in D3.1 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  31. VALU3S project: D3.6 - Final description of methods designed to improve the V&V process (2022)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research leading to this paper has received funding from the VALU3S (H2020-ECSEL grant agreement no 876852; MCIN/AEI ref. PCI2020-112001; NextGen.EU/ PRTR), iRel4.0 (H2020-ECSEL grant agreement no 876659; MCIN/AEI ref. PCI2020-112240; NextGen.EU/PRTR), ETHEREAL (MICINN/AEI ref. PID2020-115220RB-C21; ERDF), and Treasure (JCCM SBPLY/19/180501/ 000270; ERDF) projects, and from the Ramon y Cajal Program (MICINN RYC-2017-22836; ESF). We are also grateful to all the VALU3S partners that have provided input and feedback for the selection of the criteria and that applied them.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jose Luis de la Vara .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Ferrari, E., Schlick, R., de la Vara, J.L., Folkesson, P., Sangchoolie, B. (2022). Criteria for the Analysis of Gaps and Limitations of V&V Methods for Safety- and Security-Critical Systems. In: Trapp, M., Schoitsch, E., Guiochet, J., Bitsch, F. (eds) Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. SAFECOMP 2022 Workshops . SAFECOMP 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13415. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14862-0_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14862-0_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-14861-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-14862-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics