Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A new metric model for trustworthiness of softwares

  • Published:
Telecommunication Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As people depend more and more on softwares, there has been an increasing demand for the trustworthiness of the software. To measure the trustworthiness of software, we need to design appropriate trustworthy metrics. We once proposed four metric criteria for the multi-dimensional trustworthiness of the software and a metric model which satisfies these four criteria. In this paper, we describe a new metric model for the trustworthiness of the software which satisfies almost all these four criteria. Compared with the previous model, this model is better in the view of substitutivity. We also give a polynomial-time combinational algorithm for estimating the weight vectors appeared in the model based on the priority methods.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tao, H., & Chen, Y. (2010). A new metric model for trustworthiness of softwares. In Proceedings of the international conference on information science and applications (pp. 651–658).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Liu, K., Shan, Z., Wang, J., He, J., Zhang, Z., & Qin, Y. (2008). Overview on major research plan of trustworthy software. Bulletin of National Natural Science Foundation of China, 22(3), 145–151.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sekding, P. B. (1996). Faulty software caused Ariane 5 failure. Space News, 25(7), 24–30.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chen, H., Wang, J., & Dong, W. (2003). High confidence software engineering technologies. Acta Electronica Sinica, 31(12A), 2–7.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ellison, C., Frantz, B., Lampson, B., Rivest, R., Thomas, B., & Ylonen, T. (1999). SPKI certificate theory-IETF RFC 2693 (Technical Report). The Internet Society.

  6. Burrows, M., Abadi, M., & Needham, R. (1990). A logic of authentication. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 8(1), 18–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gong, L., Needham, R., & Yahalom, R. (1900). Reasoning about belief in cryptographic protocols. In Proceedings of the IEEE symposium on security and privacy (pp. 234–248).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Jøsang, A., & Haller, J. (2007). Dirichlet reputation systems. In Proceedings of the second international conference on availability (pp. 112–119).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chen, Y., Zhang, M., Zhu, H., & Bu, T. (2009). Lecture notes in computer science: Vol. 5589. Average transitive trustworthy degrees for trustworthy networks (pp. 682–689).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Zheng, Z., Ma, S., Ma, S., Li, W., Wei, W., Ma, L., & Tang, S. (2009). Complexity of software trustworthiness and its dynamical statistical analysis methods. Science in China, Series F, Information Sciences, 52, 1651–1657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Zheng, Z., Ma, S., Li, W., Jiang, X., Wei, W., Ma L., & Tang, S. (2009). Dynamical characteristics of software trustworthiness and their evolutionary complexity. Science in China, Series F, Information Sciences, 52(8), 1328–1334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Yang, S., Ding, S., & Chu, W. (2009). Trustworthy software evaluation using utility based evidence theory. Journal of Computer Research and Development, 46(7), 1152–1159 (in Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Yang, S., Ding, S., & Fu, C. (2009). A software trustworthiness evaluation model considering correlation of information sources. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 17(6), 163–169 (in Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Shi, L., & Yang, S. (2009). The evaluation of software trustworthiness with FAHP and FTOPSIS methods. In Proceedings of 2009 international conference on computational intelligence and software engineering.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Tao, H., & Chen, Y. (2009). A metric model for trustworthiness of softwares. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE/WIC/ACM international joint conference on web intelligence and intelligent agent technology (Vol. 3, pp. 69–72).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Amoroso, E., Nguyen, T., Weiss, J., Watson, J., Lapiska, P., & Starr, T. (1991). Toward an approach to measuring software trust. In Proceedings of IEEE computer society symposium on research in security and privacy (pp. 198–218).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Amoroso, E., Taylor, C., Watson, J., & Weiss, J. (1994). A process-oriented methodology for assessing and improving software trustworthiness. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM conference on computer and communications security (pp. 39–50).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Yang, Y., Wang, Q., & Li, M. (2009). Lecture notes in computer science: Vol. 5543. Process trustworthiness as a capability indicator for measuring and improving software trustworthiness (pp. 389–401).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Yu, B., Wang, Q., & Yang, Y. (2009). The trustworthiness metric model of software process quality based-on life circle. In Proceedings of international conference on management and service science.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Trusted Computing Group (2007). TCG specification architecture overview specification. http://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/files/resource_files/AC652DE1-1D09-3519-ADA026A0C05CFAC2/TCG_1_4_Architecture_Overview.pdf.

  21. ISO/IEC 15408-1 (2005). Information technology-security techniques-evaluation criteria for IT security, Part 1: Introduction and general model.

  22. Hasselbring, W., & Reussner, R. (2006). Toward trustworthy software systems. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 39(4), 91–92.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kirovski, D., Drinic, M., & Potkonjak, M. (2003). Enabling trusted software integrity. Operating Systems Review, 36(5), 108–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Qian, H., Zhu, X., & Jin, H. (2009). Research on testing-based software credibility measurement and assessment. In Proceedings of world congress on software engineering (pp. 59–64).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Voas, J. (2003). Trusted softwarep’s holy grail. Software Quality Journal, 11(1), 9–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bernstein, L. (2005). Trustworthy software systems. SIG SOFT Software Engineering Notes, 30(1), 4–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Steffen, B., Wilhelm, H., Alexandra, P. et al. (2006). Trustworthy software systems: a discussion of basic concepts and terminology. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 31(6), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hritonenko, N., & Tatsenko, Y. (1999). Mathematical modeling in economics, ecology and the environment. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Fenton, N. E., & Pfleeger, S. L. (2003). Software metrics: a rigorous and practical approach (2nd ed.). London: International Thomson Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytical hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Bajwa, G., Choo, E. U., & Wedley, W. C. (2008). Effectiveness analysis of deriving priority vectors from reciprocal pairwise comparison matrices. Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research, 25(3), 279–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Choo, E. U., & Wedley, W. C. (2004). A common framework for deriving preference values from pairwise comparison matrices. Computers and Operations Research, 31, 893–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Crawford, G. B. (1987). The geometric mean procedure for estimating the scale of a judgement matrix. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 9(3–5), 327–334.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wang, Y., Fan, Z., & Hua, Z. (2007). A chi-square method for obtaining a priority vector from multiplicative and fuzzy preference relations. European Journal of Operational Research, 182, 356–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Crawford, G., & Williams, C. (1985). A note on the analysis of subjective judgement matrices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 29, 387–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wang, Y. M., & Fu, G. W. (1992). A chi-square priority method used for group comparison matrices. Journal of Decision Making and Decision Support Systems, 2(3), 48–55 (in Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Hartvigsen, D. (2005). Representing the strengths and directions of pairwise comparisons. European Journal of Operational Research, 163, 357–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Srdjevic, B. (2005). Combining different prioritization methods in the analytic hierarchy process synthesis. Computers & Operations Research, 32, 1897–1919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Mikhailov, L., & Singh, M. G. (1999). Comparison analysis of methods for deriving priorities in the analytic hierarchy process. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics (pp. 1037–1042).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Golany, B., & Kress, M. (1993). A multicriteria evaluation of methods for obtaining weights from ratio-scale matrices. European Journal of Operational Research, 69, 210–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Bryson, N. (1995). A goal programming method for generating priorities vectors. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 46, 641–648.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Jia, L., & Chen, B. (1991). General properties of the priority methods in the analytic hierarchy process. Acta Scientiarum Naturatium Universitatis Nan Kaiensi 2, 19–28 (in Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Shanghai Key Laboratory of Trustworthy Computing, East China Normal University, Shanghai, P.R. China

    Hongwei Tao & Yixiang Chen

Authors
  1. Hongwei Tao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yixiang Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hongwei Tao.

Additional information

A preliminary version of this work was presented at the International Conference on Information Science and Applications (ICISA 2010) (A New Metric Model for Trustworthiness of Softwares [1]).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tao, H., Chen, Y. A new metric model for trustworthiness of softwares. Telecommun Syst 51, 95–105 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11235-011-9420-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11235-011-9420-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation