skip to main content
10.1145/3297280.3297468acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessacConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Enabling change-driven workflows in continuous information security management

Published:08 April 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) aim at ensuring proper protection of information values and information processing systems (i.e., assets). Information Security Risk Management (ISRM) techniques are incorporated in ISMSs to deal with threats and vulnerabilities that impose risks to information security properties of these assets. The ongoing evolution of information systems as well as the ever-changing threat landscape requires enterprises to adopt new approaches to ensure the consistent compliance with their information security goals. The great challenge enterprises are facing is to efficiently deal with all changes to their assets, their risk exposure and the impact of these changes to their ISMS and ISRM activities. We present a model-based approach for continuous information security management based on semi-automated workflows triggered by changes of the underlying asset catalogue, the operational environment and the threat landscape. The prototypical implementation was evaluated in a real-world industrial setting demonstrating high usability when integrating stakeholders from different domains in a continuous risk management process.

References

  1. Rafael Accorsi and Thomas Stocker. 2012. On the exploitation of process mining for security audits - the conformance checking case.. In 27th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Kristian Beckers, Maritta Heisel, Bjørnar Solhaug, and Ketil Stølen. 2014. ISMS-CORAS: A Structured Method for Establishing an ISO 27001 Compliant Information Security Management System. In Computer Safety, Reliability and Security. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 315--344.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Amel Bennaceur, Arosha K Bandara, Michael Jackson, Wei Liu, Lionel Montrieux, Thein Than Tun, Yijun Yu, and Bashar Nuseibeh. 2014. Requirements-driven mediation for collaborative security. SEAMS (2014), 37--42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Bernhard J Berger, Karsten Sohr, and Rainer Koschke. 2016. Automatically Extracting Threats from Extended Data Flow Diagrams. ESSoS 9639, 4 (2016), 56--71. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Stefanie Betz, Susan Hickl, and Andreas Oberweis. 2011. Risk-aware business process modeling and simulation using XML nets. In Commerce and enterprise computing (cec), 2011 IEEE 13th conference on. IEEE, 349--356. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Michael Brunner, Andrea Mussmann, and Ruth Breu. 2018. Introduction of a Tool-Based Continuous Information Security Management System: An Exploratory Case Study. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security Companion, QRS Companion 2018, Lisbon, Portugal, July 16-20, 2018. 483--490.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Michael Brunner, Christian Sillaber, and Ruth Breu. 2017. Towards Automation in Information Security Management Systems. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security (QRS). IEEE, 160--167.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Michael Brunner, Christian Sillaber, Lukas Demetz, Markus Manhart, and Ruth Breu. 2018. Towards data-driven decision support for organizational IT security audits. it - Information Technology 60, 4 (2018), 207.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Joobin Choobineh, Gurpreet Dhillon, Michael R Grimaila, and Jackie Rees. 2007. Management of Information Security - Challenges and Research Directions. CAIS (2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Raffaele Conforti, Marcello La Rosa, Arthur HM Ter Hofstede, Giancarlo Fortino, Massimiliano de Leoni, Wil MP van der Aalst, and Michael J Adams. 2013. A software framework for risk-aware business process management. In Proceedings of the CAiSE'13 Forum at the 25th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE): CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Volume 998. 130--137.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Fred D Davis. 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. Mis Quarterly 13, 3 (1989), 319--340. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Folker Den Braber, Ida Hogganvik, MS Lund, Ketik Stølen, and Fredrik Vraalsen. 2007. Model-based security analysis in seven steps --- a guided tour to the CORAS method. BT Technology Journal 25, 1 (2007), 101--117. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Andreas Ekelhart, Stefan Fenz, and Thomas Neubauer. 2009. AURUM: A Framework for Information Security Risk Management. In System Sciences, 2009. HICSS'09. 42nd Hawaii International Conference on. IEEE, 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Stefan Fenz, Johannes Heurix, Thomas Neubauer, and Fabian Pechstein. 2014. Current challenges in information security risk management. Inf. Manag. Comput. Security 22, 5 (2014), 410--430.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI). 2017. BSI-Standard 200-1: Managementsysteme für Informationssocherheit. German Federal Office for Information Security.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Alan R Hevner, Salvatore T March, Jinsoo Park, and Sudha Ram. 2008. Design science in Information Systems research. Management Information Systems Quarterly 28, 1 (2008), 6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Hannes Holm, Khurram Shahzad, Markus Buschle, and Mathias Ekstedt. 2015. P<sup>2</sup>CySeMoL: Predictive, Probabilistic Cyber Security Modeling Language. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing 12, 6 (2015), 626--639.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Ronald A Howard. 2012. Dynamic probabilistic systems: Markov models. Vol. 1. Courier Corporation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. ISACA. 2012. COBIT 5: A Business Framework for the Governance and Management of Enterprise IT. ISA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. ISO/IEC. 2011. ISO/IEC 27005: Information technology - Security Techniques - Information security risk management.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. ISO/IEC. 2013. ISO/IEC 27001: Information technology - Security techniques - Information security management system - Requirements.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Pontus Johnson, Alexandre Vernotte, Mathias Ekstedt, and Robert Lagerström. 2016. pwnPr3d - An Attack-Graph-Driven Probabilistic Threat-Modeling Approach. ARES (2016), 278--283.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Bilge Karabacak and Ibrahim Sogukpinar. 2005. ISRAM: information security risk analysis method. Computers & Security 24, 2 (2005), 147--159. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. John G Kemeny and J Laurie Snell. 1983. Finite Markov chains: with a new appendix" Generalization of a fundamental matrix". Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Paul J Krause and Dominic A Clark. 1993. Representing uncertain knowledge - an artificial intelligence approach. (1993). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. John O Long. 2012. ITIL® 2011 at a Glance. Springer Science & Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Liliana Pasquale, Paola Spoletini, Mazeiar Salehie, Luca Cavallaro, and Bashar Nuseibeh. 2016. Automating trade-off analysis of security requirements. Requirements Engineering 21, 4 (2016), 481--504. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Atle Refsdal and Ketil Stølen. 2009. Employing Key Indicators to Provide a Dynamic Risk Picture with a Notion of Confidence. IFIPTM 300, 1 (2009), 215--233.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Per Runeson, Martin Höst, Austen Rainer, and Björn Regnell. 2012. Case Study Research in Software Engineering - Guidelines and Examples. Wiley Publishing. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Mazeiar Salehie, Liliana Pasquale, Inah Omoronyia, Raian Ali, and Bashar Nuseibeh. 2012. Requirements-driven adaptive security: Protecting variable assets at runtime. In Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), 2012 20th IEEE International. IEEE, 111--120. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Andreas Schaad and Mike Borozdin. 2012. TAM2: automated threat analysis. In SAC '12: Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. ACM Request Permissions, New York, New York, USA, 1103--1108. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Teodor Sommestad, Mathias Ekstedt, and Hannes Holm. 2013. The Cyber Security Modeling Language: A Tool for Assessing the Vulnerability of Enterprise System Architectures. IEEE Systems Journal 7, 3 (2013), 363--373.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Zahoor Ahmed Soomro, Mahmood Hussain Shah, and Javed Ahmed. 2016. Information security management needs more holistic approach - A literature review. Int J. Information Management 36, 2 (2016), 215--225. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. David J Spiegelhalter. 1985. Probabilistic Reasoning in Predictive Expert Systems. UAI (1985).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Gary Stoneburner, Alice Y Goguen, and Alexis Feringa. 2002. SP 800-30. Risk Management Guide for Information Technology Systems. Technical Report. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Suriadi Suriadi, Burkhard Weiss, Axel Winkelmann, Arthur H M ter Hofstede, Michael Adams, Raffaele Conforti, Colin Fidge, Marcello La Rosa, Chun Ouyang, Michael Rosemann, Anastasiia Pika, and Moe Wynn. 2014. Current research in risk-aware business process management: overview, comparison, and gap analysis. (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Stefan Thalmann, Daniel Bachlechner, Lukas Demetz, and Ronald Maier. 2012. Challenges in Cross-Organizational Security Management. In 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). IEEE, 5480--5489. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. The Common Criteria Recognition Agreement Members. 2006. Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Simon Tjoa, Stefan Jakoubi, Gernot Goluch, Gerhard Kitzler, Sigrun Goluch, and Gerald Quirchmayr. 2011. A Formal Approach Enabling Risk-Aware Business Process Modeling and Simulation. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing 4, 2 (2011), 153--166. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. V Venkatesh and F D Davis. 2000. A theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science 46, 2 (Feb. 2000), 186--204. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. David Vose. 2008. Risk analysis: a quantitative guide. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Zeki Yazar. 2002. A qualitative risk analysis and management tool-CRAMM. SANS InfoSec Reading Room White Paper 11 (2002), 12--32.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Enabling change-driven workflows in continuous information security management

                  Recommendations

                  Comments

                  Login options

                  Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

                  Sign in
                  • Published in

                    cover image ACM Conferences
                    SAC '19: Proceedings of the 34th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing
                    April 2019
                    2682 pages
                    ISBN:9781450359337
                    DOI:10.1145/3297280

                    Copyright © 2019 ACM

                    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]

                    Publisher

                    Association for Computing Machinery

                    New York, NY, United States

                    Publication History

                    • Published: 8 April 2019

                    Permissions

                    Request permissions about this article.

                    Request Permissions

                    Check for updates

                    Qualifiers

                    • research-article

                    Acceptance Rates

                    Overall Acceptance Rate1,650of6,669submissions,25%
                  • Article Metrics

                    • Downloads (Last 12 months)38
                    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)13

                    Other Metrics

                  PDF Format

                  View or Download as a PDF file.

                  PDF

                  eReader

                  View online with eReader.

                  eReader