skip to main content
10.1145/3140368.3140374acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Step One Towards Science of Security

Published: 03 November 2017 Publication History

Abstract

Science of security necessitates conducting methodologically-defensible research and reporting such research comprehensively to enable replication and future research to build upon the reported study. The comprehensiveness of reporting is as important as the research itself in building a science of security. Key principles of science - replication, meta-analysis, and theory building - are affected by the ability to understand the context and findings of published studies. The goal of this paper is to aid the security research community in understanding the state of scientific communication through the analysis of research published at top security conferences. To analyze scientific communication, we use literature on scientific evaluation to develop a set of rubrics as a guide to check the comprehensiveness of papers published in the IEEE Security and Privacy and ACM Computer and Communications Security conferences. Our review found that papers often omit certain types of information from their reports, including research objectives and threats to validity. Our hope is that this effort sheds some light on one of the essential steps towards advancement of the science of security.

References

[1]
2010. The science of cyber-security. Technical Report JSR-10-102. MITRE.
[2]
Morgan Burcham, Mahran Al-Zyoud, Jeffrey C Carver, Mohammed Alsaleh, Hongying Du, Fida Gilani, Jun Jiang, Akond Rahman, Özgür Kafali, Ehab AlShaer, et al. 2017. Characterizing Scientific Reporting in Security Literature: An analysis of ACM CCS and IEEE S&P Papers. In Proceedings of the Hot Topics in Science of Security: Symposium and Bootcamp. ACM, 13--23.
[3]
Bobby J Calder, Lynn W Phillips, and Alice M Tybout. 1982. The concept of external validity. Journal of Consumer Research 9, 3 (1982), 240--244.
[4]
Jeffrey C. Carver, Morgan Burcham, Sedef Akinli Kocak, Ayse Bener, Michael Felderer, Matthias Gander, Jason King, Jouni Markkula, Markku Oivo, Clemens Sauerwein, et al. 2016. Establishing a baseline for measuring advancement in the science of security: an analysis of the 2015 IEEE security & privacy proceedings. In Proceedings of the Symposium and Bootcamp on the Science of Security. ACM, 38--51.
[5]
Carl F. Craver. 2002. Structures of scientific theories. The Blackwell Guide to the (2002), 55.
[6]
Anna-Bettina Haidich. 2010. Meta-analysis in medical research. Hippokratia 14, Suppl 1 (2010), 29.
[7]
Andreas Jedlitschka, Marcus Ciolkowski, and Dietmar Pfahl. 2008. Reporting experiments in software engineering. In Guide to advanced empirical software engineering. Springer, 201--228.
[8]
Andreas Jedlitschka and Dietmar Pfahl. 2005. Reporting guidelines for controlled experiments in software engineering. In Empirical Software Engineering, 2005. 2005 International Symposium on Empir. Soft. Eng. IEEE, 10--pp.
[9]
Barbara A. Kitchenham and Shari L. Pfleeger. 2008. Personal opinion surveys. Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering (2008), 63--92.
[10]
Frederick T. L. Leong and James T. Austin. 2006. The psychology research handbook: A guide for graduate students and research assistants. Sage.
[11]
Per Runeson and Martin Höst. 2009. Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical software engineering 14, 2 (2009), 131.
[12]
William R. Shadish, Thomas D. Cook, and Donald Thomas Campbell. 2002. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Wadsworth Cengage learning.
[13]
Justin Zobel. 2005. Writing for computer science (3rd ed.). Springer-Verlag.

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Analyzing Cyber Security Research Practices through a Meta-Research FrameworkProceedings of the 16th Cyber Security Experimentation and Test Workshop10.1145/3607505.3607523(64-74)Online publication date: 7-Aug-2023

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
SafeConfig '17: Proceedings of the 2017 Workshop on Automated Decision Making for Active Cyber Defense
November 2017
46 pages
ISBN:9781450352031
DOI:10.1145/3140368
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 03 November 2017

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. literature review
  2. science of security

Qualifiers

  • Short-paper

Funding Sources

  • National Security Agency

Conference

CCS '17
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

SafeConfig '17 Paper Acceptance Rate 5 of 10 submissions, 50%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 22 of 61 submissions, 36%

Upcoming Conference

CCS '25

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)5
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 18 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Analyzing Cyber Security Research Practices through a Meta-Research FrameworkProceedings of the 16th Cyber Security Experimentation and Test Workshop10.1145/3607505.3607523(64-74)Online publication date: 7-Aug-2023

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media