Abstract
Detecting conflicts between security and data-minimization requirements is a challenging task. Since such conflicts arise in the specific context of how the technical and organizational components of the target system interact with each other, their detection requires a thorough understanding of the underlying business processes. For example, a process may require anonymous execution for a task that writes data to a secure data storage, where the identity of the writer is needed for the purpose of accountability. To address this challenge, we propose an extension of the BPMN 2.0 business process modeling language to enable: (i) the specification of process-oriented data-minimization and security requirements, (ii) the detection of conflicts between these requirements based on a catalog of domain-independent anti-patterns. The considered security requirements were reused from SecBPMN2, a security-oriented extension of BPMN 2.0, while the data-minimization part is new. SecBPMN2 also provides a graphical query language called SecBPMN2-Q, which we extended to formulate our anti-patterns. We report on feasibility and usability of our approach based on a case study featuring a healthcare management system, and an experimental user study.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
BPMN 2.0. http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/
VisiOn. http://www.visioneuproject.eu/
Ahmadian, A.S., Strüber, D., Riediger, V., Jürjens, J.: Model-based privacy analysis in industrial ecosystems. In: Anjorin, A., Espinoza, H. (eds.) ECMFA 2017. LNCS, vol. 10376, pp. 215–231. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61482-3_13
Ahmadian, A.S., Strüber, D., Riediger, V., Jürjens, J.: Supporting privacy impact assessment by model-based privacy analysis. In: ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. ACM (2018, to appear)
Alkubaisy, D.: A framework managing conflicts between security and privacy requirements. In: International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science, pp. 427–432. IEEE (2017)
Arsac, W., Compagna, L., Pellegrino, G., Ponta, S.E.: Security validation of business processes via model-checking. In: Erlingsson, Ú., Wieringa, R., Zannone, N. (eds.) ESSoS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6542, pp. 29–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19125-1_3
Beckers, K., Faßbender, S., Heisel, M., Meis, R.: A problem-based approach for computer-aided privacy threat identification. In: Preneel, B., Ikonomou, D. (eds.) APF 2012. LNCS, vol. 8319, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54069-1_1
Born, K., Lambers, L., Strüber, D., Taentzer, G.: Granularity of conflicts and dependencies in graph transformation systems. In: de Lara, J., Plump, D. (eds.) ICGT 2017. LNCS, vol. 10373, pp. 125–141. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61470-0_8
Brucker, A.D., Hang, I., Lückemeyer, G., Ruparel, R.: SecureBPMN: modeling and enforcing access control requirements in business processes. In: ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies, pp. 123–126. ACM (2012)
Deng, M., Wuyts, K., Scandariato, R., Preneel, B., Joosen, W.: A privacy threat analysis framework: supporting the elicitation and fulfillment of privacy requirements. Requir. Eng. 16(1), 3–32 (2011)
Diamantopoulou, V., Argyropoulos, N., Kalloniatis, C., Gritzalis, S.: Supporting the design of privacy-aware business processes via privacy process patterns. In: International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science, pp. 187–198. IEEE (2017)
Ganji, D., Mouratidis, H., Gheytassi, S.M., Petridis, M.: Conflicts between security and privacy measures in software requirements engineering. In: Jahankhani, H., Carlile, A., Akhgar, B., Taal, A., Hessami, A.G., Hosseinian-Far, A. (eds.) ICGS3 2015. CCIS, vol. 534, pp. 323–334. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23276-8_29
Gürses, S., Troncoso, C., Diaz, C.: Engineering privacy by design. Comput. Priv. Data Protect. 14(3) (2011)
Hansen, M., Jensen, M., Rost, M.: Protection goals for privacy engineering. In: 2015 IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops, SPW, pp. 159–166. IEEE (2015)
ISO and IEC: Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation - Part 2 Security functional components. In: ISO/IEC 15408, International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) (2012)
Kalloniatis, C., Kavakli, E., Gritzalis, S.: Addressing privacy requirements in system design: the PriS method. Requir. Eng. 13(3), 241–255 (2008)
Labda, W., Mehandjiev, N., Sampaio, P.: Modeling of privacy-aware business processes in BPMN to protect personal data. In: ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1399–1405. ACM (2014)
Lambers, L., Strüber, D., Taentzer, G., Born, K., Huebert, J.: Multi-granular conflict and dependency analysis in software engineering based on graph transformation. In: International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE/ACM (2018, to appear)
Maines, C.L., Llewellyn-Jones, D., Tang, S., Zhou, B.: A cyber security ontology for BPMN-security extensions. In: International Conference on Computer and Information Technology; Ubiquitous Computing and Communications; Dependable, Autonomic and Secure Computing, pp. 1756–1763. IEEE (2015)
Meis, R., Heisel, M.: Systematic identification of information flows from requirements to support privacy impact assessments. In: International Joint Conference on Software Technologies, vol. 2, pp. 1–10. IEEE (2015)
Menzel, M., Thomas, I., Meinel, C.: Security requirements specification in service-oriented business process management. In: International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, pp. 41–48. IEEE (2009)
Mohr, A.: A survey of zero-knowledge proofs with applications to cryptography, pp. 1–12. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale (2007)
Moody, D.: The “physics” of notations: toward a scientific basis for constructing visual notations in software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35(6), 756–779 (2009)
Morton, A., Sasse, M.A.: Privacy is a process, not a PET: a theory for effective privacy practice. In: Proceedings of the 2012 Workshop on New Security Paradigms, pp. 87–104. ACM (2012)
Mouratidis, H., Kalloniatis, C., Islam, S., Huget, M.-P., Gritzalis, S.: Aligning security and privacy to support the development of secure information systems. J. UCS 18(12), 1608–1627 (2012)
Mülle, J., von Stackelberg, S., Böhm, K.: A security language for BPMN process models. KIT, Fakultät für Informatik (2011)
Pfitzmann, A., Hansen, M.: A terminology for talking about privacy by data minimization: anonymity, unlinkability, unobservability, pseudonymity, and identity management. Technical report, TU Dresden and ULD Kiel (2011)
Ramadan, Q., Salnitri, M., Strüber, D., Jürjens, J., Giorgini, P.: From secure business process modeling to design-level security verification. In: International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, pp. 123–133. IEEE (2017)
Ramadan, Q., Strüber, D., Salnitri, M., Riediger, V., Jürjens, J.: Detecting Conflicts between Data-Minimization and Security Requirements in Business Process Models, Long Version (2018). https://figshare.com/s/664b1c79c55130a44e79
Rodríguez, A., Fernández-Medina, E., Trujillo, J., Piattini, M.: Secure business process model specification through a UML 2.0 activity diagram profile. Decis. Support Syst. 51(3), 446–465 (2011)
Saleem, M., Jaafar, J., Hassan, M.: A domain-specific language for modelling security objectives in a business process models of SOA applications. AISS 4(1), 353–362 (2012)
Salnitri, M., Dalpiaz, F., Giorgini, P.: Modeling and verifying security policies in business processes. In: Bider, I., Gaaloul, K., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, H.A., Schmidt, R., Soffer, P. (eds.) BPMDS/EMMSAD -2014. LNBIP, vol. 175, pp. 200–214. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43745-2_14
Spiekermann, S., Cranor, L.F.: Engineering privacy. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 35(1), 67–82 (2009)
Van Blarkom, G.W., Borking, J.J., Olk, J.G.E.: Handbook of Privacy and Privacy-Enhancing Technologies. Privacy Incorporated Software Agent (PISA) Consortium, The Hague (2003)
Vivas, J.L., Montenegro, J.A., López, J.: Towards a business process-driven framework for security engineering with the UML. In: Boyd, C., Mao, W. (eds.) ISC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2851, pp. 381–395. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/10958513_29
Wolter, C., Schaad, A.: Modeling of task-based authorization constraints in BPMN. In: Alonso, G., Dadam, P., Rosemann, M. (eds.) BPM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4714, pp. 64–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75183-0_5
Acknowledgment
We wish to thank Paolo Giorgini and the STS tool development team in the University of Trento for providing us with access to the source code of the STS tool. We also wish to thank the participants of our study. This research was partially supported by: (I) The Deutsche Akademische Austauschdienst (DAAD), (II) the project “Engineering Responsible Information Systems” financed by the University of Koblenz-Landau.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this paper
Cite this paper
Ramadan, Q., Strüber, D., Salnitri, M., Riediger, V., Jürjens, J. (2018). Detecting Conflicts Between Data-Minimization and Security Requirements in Business Process Models. In: Pierantonio, A., Trujillo, S. (eds) Modelling Foundations and Applications. ECMFA 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10890. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92997-2_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92997-2_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-92996-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-92997-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)