Skip to main content

Computational Aspects of Attack–Defense Trees

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 7053))

Abstract

Attack–defense trees extend attack trees with defense nodes. This richer formalism allows for a more precise modeling of a system’s vulnerabilities, by representing interactions between possible attacks and corresponding defensive measures. In this paper we compare the computational complexity of both formalisms. We identify semantics for which extending attack trees with defense nodes does not increase the computational complexity. This implies that, for these semantics, every query that can be solved efficiently on attack trees can also be solved efficiently on attack–defense trees. Furthermore, every algorithm for attack trees can directly be used to process attack–defense trees.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Schneier, B.: Attack Trees. Dr. Dobb’s Journal of Software Tools 24(12), 21–29 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Weiss, J.D.: A system security engineering process. In: 14th Nat. Comp. Sec. Conf., pp. 572–581 (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Amoroso, E.G.: Fundamentals of Computer Security Technology. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River (1994)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Vesely, W.E., Goldberg, F.F., Roberts, N., Haasl, D.: Fault Tree Handbook. Technical Report NUREG-0492, U.S. Regulatory Commission (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Mauw, S., Oostdijk, M.: Foundations of Attack Trees. In: Won, D.H., Kim, S. (eds.) ICISC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3935, pp. 186–198. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Cervesato, I., Meadows, C.: One Picture Is Worth a Dozen Connectives: A Fault-Tree Representation of NPATRL Security Requirements. IEEE TDSC 4, 216–227 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Edge, K.S., Dalton II, G.C., Raines, R.A., Mills, R.F.: Using Attack and Protection Trees to Analyze Threats and Defenses to Homeland Security. In: MILCOM, IEEE, pp. 1–7 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Morais, A.N.P., Martins, E., Cavalli, A.R., Jimenez, W.: Security Protocol Testing Using Attack Trees. In: CSE (2), pp. 690–697. IEEE Computer Society (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jürgenson, A., Willemson, J.: Serial Model for Attack Tree Computations. In: Lee, D., Hong, S. (eds.) ICISC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5984, pp. 118–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Bistarelli, S., Peretti, P., Trubitsyna, I.: Analyzing Security Scenarios Using Defence Trees and Answer Set Programming. ENTCS 197(2), 121–129 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Yager, R.R.: OWA trees and their role in security modeling using attack trees. Inf. Sci. 176(20), 2933–2959 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Kordy, B., Mauw, S., Radomirović, S., Schweitzer, P.: Foundations of Attack–Defense Trees. In: Degano, P., Etalle, S., Guttman, J. (eds.) FAST 2010. LNCS, vol. 6561, pp. 80–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Kordy, B., Mauw, S., Melissen, M., Schweitzer, P.: Attack–Defense Trees and Two-Player Binary Zero-Sum Extensive Form Games Are Equivalent. In: Alpcan, T., Buttyán, L., Baras, J.S. (eds.) GameSec 2010. LNCS, vol. 6442, pp. 245–256. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Kohlas, J.: Information Algebras: Generic Structures for Inference. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Davey, B., Priestley, H.: Introduction to Lattices and Order. Cambridge University Press (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pouly, M., Kohlas, J.: Generic Inference: A Unifying Theory for Automated Reasoning. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Crama, Y., Hammer, P.: Boolean Functions: Theory, Algorithms and Applications. Cambridge University Press (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Wachter, M., Haenni, R.: Multi-state Directed Acyclic Graphs. In: Kobti, Z., Wu, D. (eds.) Canadian AI 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4509, pp. 464–475. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Darwiche, A., Marquis, P.: A Knowledge Compilation Map. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 17, 229–264 (2002)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Pascal Bouvry Mieczysław A. Kłopotek Franck Leprévost Małgorzata Marciniak Agnieszka Mykowiecka Henryk Rybiński

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Kordy, B., Pouly, M., Schweitzer, P. (2012). Computational Aspects of Attack–Defense Trees. In: Bouvry, P., Kłopotek, M.A., Leprévost, F., Marciniak, M., Mykowiecka, A., Rybiński, H. (eds) Security and Intelligent Information Systems. SIIS 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7053. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25261-7_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25261-7_8

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-25260-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-25261-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics