<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Combining Risk-Management and Computational Approaches for Trustworthiness Evaluation of Socio-Technical Systems</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Nazila Gol Mohammadi</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3">3</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Torsten Bandyszak</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3">3</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Abigail Goldsteen</string-name>
          <email>abigailt@il.ibm.com</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Costas Ka- logiros</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Thorsten Weyer</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3">3</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Micha Moffie</string-name>
          <email>moffie@il.ibm.com</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Bassem Nasser</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Mike Surridge</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Athens University of Economics and Business</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Athens</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="GR">Greece</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>IBM Research Haifa</institution>
          ,
          <country country="IL">Israel</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2">
          <label>2</label>
          <institution>IT-Innovation Center, School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Southampton</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="UK">United Kingdom</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3">
          <label>3</label>
          <institution>paluno - The Ruhr Institute for Software Technology, University of Duisburg-Essen</institution>
          ,
          <country country="DE">Germany</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>2011</year>
      </pub-date>
      <abstract>
        <p>The analysis of existing software evaluation techniques reveals the need for evidence-based evaluation of systems' trustworthiness. This paper aims at evaluating trustworthiness of socio-technical systems during designtime. Our approach combines two existing evaluation techniques: a computational approach and a risk management approach. The risk-based approach identifies threats to trustworthiness on an abstract level. Computational approaches are applied to evaluate the expected end-to-end system trustworthiness in terms of different trustworthiness metrics on a concrete asset instance level. Our hybrid approach, along with a complementary tool prototype, support the assessment of risks related to trustworthiness as well as the evaluation of a system with regard to trustworthiness requirements. The result of the evaluation can be used as evidence when comparing different system configurations.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>Asset Modelling</kwd>
        <kwd>Socio-Technical-System</kwd>
        <kwd>Computational Evaluation</kwd>
        <kwd>Trustworthiness Attributes</kwd>
        <kwd>Metrics</kwd>
        <kwd>Risk Analysis</kwd>
        <kwd>Evaluation</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>
        The technological settings in which information systems are designed, developed, and
deployed have drastically changed with the advance of new technologies such as
cloud computing. Socio-Technical Systems (STS) are often software-intensive
information systems that interact with a variety of other software systems, as well as
humans and physical entities [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1 ref2">1, 2</xref>
        ]. To enable designing systems with higher
trustworthiness, it is crucial to analytically evaluate and estimate the trustworthiness of a
system with a thorough analysis of risks and mitigation actions. This includes identifying
controls to prevent threat activity at run-time. The results of this analysis should be
addressed appropriately in subsequent development phases. For instance, threats
identified early in the system design could yield certain trustworthiness requirements that
may guide the selection or re-use of components or services. Explicit documentation
of design decisions that affect the trustworthiness of a system is also essential. STS
designers may need guidance when deciding whether including a certain mitigation
mechanism in the system will result in an actual increase in trustworthiness, and
eventually pay off. Therefore, evaluation of the End-to-End (E2E) trustworthiness of
different system configurations can give some confidence in whether the detected threats
are indeed prevented. Despite a large amount of literature addressing trustworthiness
evaluation, the E2E evaluation of multi-faceted trustworthiness remains an open
research problem. Some approaches merely focus on reliability [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ] or security [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ]. In
contrast, our evaluation approach is based on a holistic taxonomy of software quality
attributes and metrics that contribute to trustworthiness [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
        ], including compliance,
privacy, usability, complexity and many more.
      </p>
      <p>
        We employ two complementary techniques: risk-based and computational analysis.
The risk-based approach is applied at very early stage on an abstract model of the
system which is independent of concrete component realizations. Complimentarily,
the computational approach is performed at a later stage, on a more concrete level. It
uses trustworthiness metrics, and involves calculating and aggregating them
according to the complex system structures, to produce E2E metric values. Our proposed
hybrid approach is a comprehensive evaluation approach that is applicable on many
levels of granularity. To the best of our knowledge, no existing approaches combine
these two techniques such that the consideration of threats and potential mitigations
are evaluated once concrete assets are available and composed to build the system.
We focus particularly on software assets that are accessible via an online marketplace
with certificates holding trustworthiness metric values. Previous work aimed at
establishing such a software marketplace to allow designers to select trustworthy system
assets based on certificates and to compose them to create a new system [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ].Our
hybrid approach allows designers to evaluate a system’s trustworthiness and make good
design choices based on risk assessment and trustworthiness metrics. The tool support
also aids designers by automatically generating software requirement documents and
trustworthiness reports as evidence. The information in these documents is organized
in a hierarchical way, allowing expert users to drill-down to the desired level of detail.
      </p>
      <p>The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: In Section 2, we present the
background and give a brief overview of existing techniques for evaluating
trustworthiness. Section 3 presents our approach and evaluates it using an application example
from the Ambient Assisted Living (AAL) domain. Section 4 summarizes our work.
2</p>
      <p>Background and Related Work
This section presents the background and fundamental concepts used in our paper. We
base our work on trustworthiness attributes that aim to manifest the trust concerns of
end-users in an objective way. Trustworthiness attributes are quantified using
trustworthiness metrics, that measure system (or individual components) behaviour, based
on raw measurements, i.e., observable system properties.</p>
      <p>
        Design-time models allow domain expertise to be encoded and reused in a
systems’ design. Such models may have different levels of abstraction. For example, an
abstract system model can be used to help system designers to graphically identify
and analyse the threats that can arise in a system [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ], before knowing the actual
deployment details. In STS, there is a particular need to explicitly specify the
dependencies between assets in the system (e.g., host of application). An Asset is anything of
value in an STS [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7 ref8">7, 8</xref>
        ], including software, hardware and humans. A Workflow model
specifies a set of concrete asset instances, as well as their interrelations. A system can
be described using several such workflows, each representing a certain process (or use
case) performed by the system.
      </p>
      <p>
        There are many standards and methods [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10 ref11 ref12 ref9">9, 10, 11, 12</xref>
        ] that describe the risk
management methodology and provide support in the process of identifying the system
assets and relevant threats. The CORAS project [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
        ] aimed at simplifying the task
using a graphical approach to identify, explain and document security threats and risk
scenarios. However, these approaches depend on humans. Microsoft’s SDL threat
modelling tool provides a graphical user interface for developers to generate threat
models based on software architecture diagrams. However, Microsoft’s SDL threat
modelling tools may be more likely to overlook threats beyond the scope of STRIDE
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
        ] (e.g., human-centred attacks) unless they also involve security professionals.
      </p>
      <p>
        The need to evaluate the overall trustworthiness of a system has been recognised
by several researchers. Elshaafi et al. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
        ] present an approach towards measuring the
trustworthiness of a service composition focusing on run-time monitoring and
targeting reputation, reliability, and security considering several service compositions.
Similarly, Zhao et al., [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref16">16</xref>
        ] propose a framework for trustworthy web service
management, which aggregates the availability, reliability, and response time of services
composed in sequence, parallel, conditional, and loop structures. Other approaches,
such as [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref17">17</xref>
        ], focus on reputation only by aggregating service ratings in order to
determine the provider’s trustworthiness. Cardoso et al., [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref18">18</xref>
        ] utilize graph reduction
mechanisms and respective formulas for aggregating time, cost, and reliability of
service workflows. Hwang et al. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref19">19</xref>
        ] propose a probabilistic approach for estimating
certain quality of service of respective compositions. While the above approaches
support a large number of composition patterns, they focus on a limited set of
trustworthiness metrics. Closer to our approach is the work of Jaeger et al. [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref20">20</xref>
        ] where they
support a wider set of QoS metrics.
3
      </p>
      <p>Trustworthiness Evaluation of Socio-Technical Systems
This section describes our trustworthiness evaluation approach. First, a conceptual
model of our approach is presented. Second, we describe how we combine two
existing techniques at two different abstraction levels.
3.1</p>
      <p>Overview of Our Approach
Meta-model for Design-Time Trustworthiness Evaluation. The fundamental
concepts and their relations are depicted in Fig. 1.</p>
      <p>We distinguish between Asset Categories, generic types of system building blocks
on an abstract level, and Asset Instances, concrete instances pertaining to a certain
category, e.g., a concrete software application or implementation. A Threat is a
situation or event that, if active, could undermine the value of an asset by altering its
behaviour. Controls are trustworthiness requirements that aim at mitigating threats.</p>
      <p>
        For computational evaluation of trustworthiness in our approach, Metrics are used
as functions to quantify system trustworthiness. A Metric is a standard way for
measuring and quantifying certain trustworthiness attributes and more concrete quality
properties of a system [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ]. Metric values of a specific Asset instance are provided
within a trustworthiness certificate that is often provided together with the software
itself on a marketplace.
      </p>
      <p>includes</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>1..n Asset</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Instance</title>
      <p>0..n 0..n includes 1 has</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Workflow</title>
      <p>considers 1 1 EnFdo-rtmo-uEland
Threat
threaten 1..n
1..n 1 1
1</p>
      <p>blocks 1..n
protects
1..n</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>Asset 1</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>Category has</title>
      <p>0..n Trustworthiness</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-7">
      <title>Attribute</title>
      <p>1
1</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-8">
      <title>Certificate</title>
      <p>provides metric values
1
1..n
provides parameters for 1..n
Control 1 has
1..n</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-9">
      <title>Control</title>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-10">
      <title>Objective</title>
      <p>1..n 1..n
considers
1 quantifies
1..n</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-11">
      <title>Metric</title>
      <p>A Certificate is created by a certification authority that evaluates a software system or
asset in order to confirm that it meets some trustworthiness goals. It describes all
observed trustworthiness properties of the software, as well as related evidence in terms
of certified metric values. In order to enable trustworthiness computation for a whole
E2E system configuration, and thereby aggregate the certified metric values for each
of its asset instances, E2E formulas are required. Since Workflows describe the
concrete instance relations, each E2E formula is particular to a certain Workflow.
Combining Risk Assessment with Computational Approaches toward
Trustworthiness Evaluation. In the proposed E2E trustworthiness evaluation, the risk-based
approach is performed on the level of asset categories while the trustworthiness
metric computation is based on metric values of asset instances (illustrated in Fig. 2).
Trustworthiness evaluation starts with a design-time system model which describes
the general building blocks of an envisioned STS in an abstract level. It includes both
physical, and logical assets (e.g., software), as well as humans that interact with the
system. This model is independent of concrete realizations, i.e., without considering
which asset instances that shall be deployed as implementations of software assets.
At this early stage our approach already allows us to identify threats to correct system
behaviour at run-time. To this end, a knowledge base of threats is used to identify
relevant threats to the asset based on its type (e.g., logical asset, physical asset, etc.)
and its relations patterns (e.g., client-server relation). Given the threats and potential
controls the designer is provided with a statement on the risks and corresponding
actions that can be taken or at least planned for at design-time. Based on this
information, asset structures may be revised, or informed decisions on the concrete asset
instances can be made.</p>
      <p>List of Threats and Control</p>
      <p>Objectives
Identify
Threats</p>
      <p>Determine
Control to
mitigate a</p>
      <p>Threat
Yes</p>
      <p>No</p>
      <p>Determine
Minimum per
Workflow &amp;
TW Attribute</p>
      <p>Multiple
workflows
available? Yes</p>
      <p>Include the
Control in the
System Model</p>
      <p>E2E values
TW Attribute
Determine
Minimum per
TW Attribute</p>
      <p>Create
workflow
including the
control for
Evaluation</p>
      <p>Overall
E2E value
Determine
Overall</p>
      <p>E2E value
No</p>
      <p>TW Specification</p>
      <p>End
End
iskssaeR ttrscbaAA Start
l
e
irc ve
tndeM tcaneL
ft--donEE itIIsnnon Start</p>
      <p>a
so lau
sce vE
roP luae Certificates</p>
      <p>V</p>
      <p>Create
design-time</p>
      <p>System</p>
      <p>Model
Calculate E2E
values per
Workflow &amp;</p>
      <p>Metric</p>
      <p>Workflow</p>
      <p>Graphs</p>
      <p>E2E values per
Workflow &amp; per Metric</p>
      <p>E2E values per Workflow</p>
      <p>&amp; TW Attribute
Once concrete instances (e.g., available on a marketplace) of the asset categories are
selected and modelled in terms of one or multiple workflows, the designer can then
use the computational trustworthiness evaluation approach to calculate E2E
trustworthiness based on the certified metric values of each of the asset instances, and the E2E
formulas for each relevant workflow.</p>
      <p>The system structure needs to be considered and reflected in the E2E value. We
considered different component structures for determining an “E2E” trustworthiness
value based on metrics. Redundancy structures, which are defined as a means to
assure correct system performance and thereby increase trustworthiness levels, were
especially considered in the E2E trustworthiness calculation. The explicit description
of respective metrics is a precondition for the calculation of E2E trustworthiness
value, which requires certified metric values of each involved asset as parameters.
The resulting E2E trustworthiness values provide detailed information about the
aggregated trustworthiness of the asset instances that are involved in a certain workflow.
This allows the designer to relate the threats to the affecting trustworthiness values,
and also evaluate and substantiate the effectiveness of applied design-time controls.
Assuming that the metric values reflect the existence of controls (e.g., confidentiality,
authentication), then the quantification enhances the evaluation. In order to facilitate
the interpretation of the calculated E2E trustworthiness, the initial values that are
particular to a certain workflow can again be aggregated so that finally one value for
the whole system trustworthiness can be obtained. To this end, for instance, a
pessimistic approach can be followed, and the minimum of two or more metrics per
attribute, or workflows can be calculated. A required precondition is that the value ranges
of different metrics are comparable.
3.2</p>
      <p>Application Example
This section describes an application example for demonstrating our two-fold
approach on different levels of abstraction (illustrated in Fig. 5).</p>
      <p>The example scenario focuses on a Fall Management System (FMS) from the AAL
domain. FMS allows elderly people in their homes to call for help in case of
emergency situations. These emergency incidents are reported to an Alarm Call centre that,
in turn, reacts by e.g., dispatching ambulances or other medical caregivers, e.g. the
relatives. The starting point for evaluating the trustworthiness of such an STS is a
design-time system model (depicted in Fig. 3). An elderly uses a Personal Emergency
Response System (PERS) device to call for help, which is then reported to the Alarm
Call Center that uses an Emergency Monitoring and Handling Tool (EMHT) to
visualize, organize, and manage incidents. Hence, the EMHT is a software service hosted
by the Alarm Call Center operated by a Healthcare authority. Emergency notification
and Ambulances Services, which are run on mobile phones of relatives, or by
Ambulance Stations respectively, are called in order to require caregivers to provide help.
Identification of Threats and Controls. Based on the design-time system model,
which specifies the relevant asset types of the system, and their relations, the
trustworthiness evaluation is first performed on this abstraction layer of abstract assets.
The “Evaluate System E2E Trustworthiness” use case of our prototype tool supports
the designer in this task. The model file is passed to the System Analyser for
analysing the threats that may affect each system asset. The System Analyser reports for
each asset type the related threats as well as the potential controls that can be applied
to prevent or mitigate the threats. For instance, a threat that may arise at run-time is
the unavailability of the EMHT asset. This will probably lead to a failure of the whole
STS, since the EMHT is a central service that enables and facilitates handling
incoming calls for help. Hence, a possible control to react to this threat at run-time may be
service substitution, i.e., to switch to another backup service that may also be a
different implementation of the asset category. In order to address and implement this
control at design-time, two or more concrete EMHT realizations have to be considered as
redundant instances of the EMHT asset. The identified control will be considered
(including redundant asset instances) and modelled as a workflow.</p>
      <p>Trustworthiness Calculation for Asset Instance Configurations. As a required
precondition for E2E trustworthiness calculation, the designer has to select the
evaluation criteria to be used, i.e., the weights of relevant trustworthiness attributes to
the overall E2E TW. The weights represent the designer’s preferences regarding the
relevance of each trustworthiness attribute. The designer continues by uploading one
or more workflows. Fig. 4 shows an exemplary workflow for our FMS example. The
designer specifies the redundant asset instances EMHT_1 and EMHT_2 and
Ambulance_Service_1 to 3 for the asset types “EMHT” and “Ambulance_Service”
respectively. Based on the Workflow graphs, the Formula Builder of the E2E TWE tool will
create formula skeletons for any kind of metrics.
These skeletons will be combined according to the sequence structures of the asset
categories modelled in the workflows. For all of the existing asset instances,
certificates containing Metric values stored as evidences must be provided. The E2E
Trustworthiness Calculator will extract the metric values from the certificates and use them
in the E2E computation. Here, the attribute weights that have been specified by the
designer in the first place will be used in order to obtain a single trustworthiness
values for the whole system composition.</p>
      <p>These relations between the two complementary approaches are illustrated in Fig.
5, which also shows how the generated output supports the evaluation.
This paper addresses the problems of the commonly used techniques for evaluating
overall trustworthiness in STS. We suggest a combination of two complementary
techniques: computational approach and risk management approach. Threats and
controls proposed by the risk based approach can be evaluated against actual
trustworthiness values, thus substantiating the effectiveness of applied design-time
controls. We also presented a tool prototype that supports the assessment of risks related
to trustworthiness as well as the evaluation of a system with regard to trustworthiness
requirements, aiding the designer in making trustworthiness related decisions and
providing evidence and documentation for those decisions.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sommerville</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>I.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Software Engineering, 9th edition</article-title>
          , Addison-Wesley,
          <year>2011</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lock</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <source>Sommerville, I.: Modelling and Analysis of Socio-Technical System of Systems, In: 15th IEEE Int'l. Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems</source>
          ,
          <year>2010</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dev</surname>
            <given-names>G</given-names>
          </string-name>
          . Raheja,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Louis J</surname>
          </string-name>
          . Gullo:
          <article-title>Design for Reliability</article-title>
          . Wiley,
          <year>2012</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Avizienis</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Laprie</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.-C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Randell</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Landwehr</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing</article-title>
          ,
          <source>IEEE Trans. on Dependable and Secure Computing</source>
          <volume>1</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>11</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>33</lpage>
          ,
          <year>2004</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Gol</given-names>
            <surname>Mohammadi</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Paulus</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Bishr</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Metzger</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Koennecke</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Hartenstein</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Weyer</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            and
            <surname>Pohl</surname>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>K.</surname>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Trustworthiness Attributes and Metrics for Engineering Trusted Internet-based Software Systems</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Cloud Computing and Services Science</source>
          ,
          <source>(CLOSER Selected Paper)</source>
          ,
          <source>Communications in Computer and Information Science</source>
          <volume>453</volume>
          .
          <fpage>19</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>35</lpage>
          ,
          <year>2014</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ali</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sabetta</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bezzi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>A Marketplace for Business Software with Certified Security Properties</article-title>
          , In: Cyber Security and
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Privacy</given-names>
            <surname>Communications</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <source>Computer and Information Science</source>
          <volume>182</volume>
          .
          <fpage>105</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>114</lpage>
          ,
          <year>2013</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Gol</given-names>
            <surname>Mohammadi</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Bandyszak</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Moffie</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Chen</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>X.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Weyer</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Kalogiros</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Nasser</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>B.</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <source>and Mike Surridge: Maintaining Trustworthiness of Socio-Technical Systems at Run-Time, In: Proceedings 11th Int'l. Conference TrustBus</source>
          ,
          <year>2014</year>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Surridge</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Nasser</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chen</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chakravarthy</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Melas</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Run-Time Risk Management in Adaptive ICT Systems</article-title>
          ,
          <source>In: 8th Int'l. Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES)</source>
          ,
          <volume>102</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>110</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2013</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Christopher</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J. A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dorofee</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <article-title>Managing Information Security Risks: The Octave Approach</article-title>
          . Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, USA,
          <year>2002</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          10.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Fray</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>I.L.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>A comparative study of risk assessment methods, MEHARI &amp; CRAMM with a new formal model of risk assessment (FoMRA) in information systems</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proc. of the 11th Int'l. Conference on Computer Information Systems and Industrial Management</source>
          ,
          <year>2012</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          11. ISO/IEC 27005,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Information</surname>
          </string-name>
          technology - Security techniques
          <article-title>- Information security risk management</article-title>
          , https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso-iec:27005:ed-2:v1:
          <fpage>en</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2011</year>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          12. OWASP.org (
          <year>2013</year>
          ), https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Top_10_
          <fpage>2013</fpage>
          -Top_
          <fpage>10</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2013</year>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          13.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hogganvik</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>I.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Stølen</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>A graphical approach to risk identification, motivated by empirical investigations</article-title>
          ,
          <source>In: Proceedings of the 9th Int'l. Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MoDELS'06)</source>
          ,
          <year>2006</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          14.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Swiderski</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Snyder</surname>
          </string-name>
          , W.: Threat Modelling. Microsoft Press.
          <year>2004</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          15.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Elshaafi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>McGibney</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Botvich</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Trustworthiness monitoring and prediction of composite services</article-title>
          .
          <source>Computers and Communications (ISCC)</source>
          ,
          <source>2012 IEEE Symposium on</source>
          (pp.
          <fpage>000580</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>000587</lpage>
          ),
          <year>2012</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref16">
        <mixed-citation>
          16.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Zhao</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wu</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Li</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Yu</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>A Framework for Trustworthy Web Service Management</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: 2nd Int'l. Symposium Electronic Commerce and Security</source>
          ,
          <volume>479</volume>
          -
          <fpage>482</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2009</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref17">
        <mixed-citation>
          17.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Malik</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Z.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bouguettaya</surname>
          </string-name>
          , A.:
          <article-title>RATEWeb: Reputation Assessment for Trust Establishment among Web services</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: VLDB Journal</source>
          , Vol.
          <volume>18</volume>
          , Issue 4, pp.
          <fpage>885</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>911</lpage>
          ,
          <year>2009</year>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref18">
        <mixed-citation>
          18.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Cardoso</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sheth</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Miller</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Arnold</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kochut</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Quality of Service for Workflows and Web Service Processes</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web</source>
          <volume>1</volume>
          (
          <issue>3</issue>
          ),
          <fpage>281</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>308</lpage>
          ,
          <year>2004</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref19">
        <mixed-citation>
          19.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Jaeger</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M. C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rojec-Goldmann</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mühl</surname>
          </string-name>
          , G.:
          <article-title>QoS Aggregation for Web Service Composition using Workflow Patterns</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Proceedings of the 8th IEEE Int'l. Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conf (EDOC</source>
          <year>2004</year>
          ), pp.
          <fpage>149</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>159</lpage>
          ,
          <year>2004</year>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref20">
        <mixed-citation>
          20.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hwang</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S. Y.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wang</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>H.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tang</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Srivastava</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.:</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>A Probabilistic Approach to Modeling and estimating the QoS of web-services-based workflows</article-title>
          .
          <source>In: Journal of Information Sciences</source>
          <volume>177</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>5484</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>5503</lpage>
          ,
          <year>2007</year>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>