<!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>Social Threats Modelling with i*</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Lin Liu</string-name>
          <email>linliu@tsinghua.edu.cn</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Eric Yu</string-name>
          <email>eric.yu@utoronto.ca</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Gul Jabeen</string-name>
          <email>gul.jabeen@kiu.edu.pk</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>School of Information, University of Toronto</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Toronto</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="CA">Canada</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>School of Software, Tsinghua University</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Beijing</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="CN">China</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>2016</year>
      </pub-date>
      <volume>1674</volume>
      <fpage>97</fpage>
      <lpage>102</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>Security incidents lead to loss or disruptions of an organisation's operations, services or functions, or reductions in the quality of the expected services. For any security incident, there is an individual or a group of attackers, conducting the attack action, towards one or many victims. The two sides are played by social actors, with certain social positions, protecting or obstructing a given operations, services functions with certain techniques. In this paper, we propose a meta-model that aims to capture the act of attackers and the counteract of the victims using social concepts in i*. Such act vs. counteract, attack vs. protection situation is inherently socio-technical. By compensating existing tactical analytic frameworks on security, an important dimension of the problem space is tackled, which leads to the identification of effective solutions systematically that are otherwise by coincidence.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>security</kwd>
        <kwd>requirements</kwd>
        <kwd>modeling</kwd>
        <kwd>UML profile</kwd>
        <kwd>i* framework</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>
        Introduction
In the cybercrime research, the subject of attackers and their motivations are studies in
depth [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
        ]. Security threat modelling is a socio-technical problem, where the social
aspects are often neglected in the literature [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ]. Security is a critical non-functional
requirements that i* can help model and yield interesting reasoning results [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ]. This
includes the elicitation of the social relations involved in the problem domain, the
identification of vulnerable dependencies, the potential attacks violating committed
social contracts, the possible counter-measures that can partially or fully disable
potential threats. Many techniques were proposed for dealing with security
requirements, including scenario-based approaches [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
        ], UML-based approaches[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
        ],
and goal-oriented approaches [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7 ref8">7, 8</xref>
        ] that are treating security requirements as anti-goals
or obstacles [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>
        ], or abuse frames [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ] or security taxonomies[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ], ontologies [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
        ] and
patterns [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ]. Each of these approaches covers a different aspect of security requirements
modelling, amongst which i* covers the social strategic angle that complements existing
approaches.
      </p>
      <p>This paper revisits the social modelling concepts in i*, and proposes a meta-model
and examines its expressiveness when dealing with the general threats use cases. Its
sufficiency as standard threats modelling language is examined and possible future
direction is discussed. A model as such adopts meta-model concepts such as: role, agent,
actor, and security modelling concepts are: attacker, victim. Actor is the first class concept in
the social modelling of security. There are two subclasses of actor, one is role, which covers
the abstract behavioral patterns in a given domain; the other one is agent, which covers the
concrete physical entities related to real systems context, who plays roles in different setting.
There are two types of roles we are concerned about in the security setting, one is the
attacker, and the other is the victim of attacks. An attacker usually has malicious goals or
intents. Malicious goal is a subclass of goal, which obstructs at least one other goal. Attacks
are means to realise malicious goals, which is defined as a task in i*. It means that an attack
is composed of a certain procedure, may require certain resource, sub-goal, sub-task, or</p>
      <p>Copyright © 2016 for this paper by its authors. Copying permitted for private and academic purposes.
softgoal. It is made successful as an attacker finds a viable way through the social
dependency network of “role-playing”, “task-decomposition”, “means-ends” and
“contribution” links. A social vulnerability is defined as a subclass of dependency, which
brings vulnerability to a depender as the attacks are propagated through vulnerable
dependencies.</p>
      <p>1)
2)
3)
4)
5)</p>
      <p>For ALL x in Actor, y in Resource, z in Attack,
Role-Play (Attacker, x) AND HAS-ACCESS(x, y) AND COMMIT(x, z)</p>
      <p>=&gt; Exist x’ in Actor, Role-Play( Victim, x’) AND LOSS (x’, y, z);
For ALL x in Actor, y in Resource, WithinBoundary(x, y) =&gt; HAS-ACCESS(x, y);
For ALL x in Actor, y, y’ in Resource, WithinBoundary(x, y) AND ISA(y, y’)</p>
      <p>=&gt; WithinBoundary(x, y’) ;</p>
      <p>For ALL x, x’ in Actor, y in Resource, WithinBoundary(x, y) AND (ISA(x, x') OR IS-Part-Of(x, x'))
=&gt; WithinBoundary(x’, y)</p>
      <p>For ALL x in Actor, z in Attack, COMMIT(x, z) =&gt; WithinBoundary(x, z)</p>
      <p>Threat Modeling Use Case I: Corporate Information Security
We use two threats modelling use cases to examine the modelling capability of the
above meta-model.</p>
      <p>Here is a description of the first one: A multi-national company with multiple
datacenters, office facilities, and international business activity. Offices and data centers
are located in the US, Europe, APAC. Some facilities are in countries with conflict of
interests. Employees include citizens across all locations. Some data centers are hosted
by a co-location provider with external security staff. Turnover of staff is within normal
ranges. There are active use of contractors and other external partners, and a large
number of deployed security systems, sensors. Information Security systems includes:
Access control through directory, but large number of services that are not integrated;
Basic endpoint security systems for most servers and laptops; Firewalls; Intrusion
Detection System/Intrusion Prevention System (IDS/IPS), Security Information and
Event Management (SIEM); Systems monitoring; Physical Security systems. Basic
physical access control: Video monitoring of sensitive areas; Intrusion detection;
Commercial fire alarms and suppression; Notification/alerting for critical events
(through SMS, email, etc.) On call staff includes skeletal 24/7-support team, some
oncall staff for escalation, External guards.</p>
      <p>As the i* model in Fig. 2 shows, actors are used to represent the different players
in the problem setting, in this particular scenario, we are interested in understanding the
security situations of the multi-national company with certain assets that is considered
valuable and requires protection. There are five types of actors defined: the
multinational company under discussion, its employee, who is connected with the company
with "is-part-of" link. There are also contractors, who are not considered as part of the
company, but are relied upon on certain services. When some data centers are hosted by
some co-located provider, these provider are actually subclasses of contractors, who may
hire external security Staff. Assets are represented as resources, internal resources are
owned by the company, so we use actor boundary to indicate such ownership
relationship. External resources are not owned, but are dependums that linked to the
actual owner or provider. A variety of potential attack scenarios can be played out
against the company by attackers, including external and internal attacks. While there is
a reasonable security program in place, the company is not able to ensure full in-depth
security across all systems and assets for the following reasons. In these scenarios the
following strategies are employed:
Potential adversaries may include: Cyber criminals, including organized crime (domestic
and foreign); Competitors; Malicious Insiders: Disgruntled employees and contractors;
Hostile Investors: Potential corporate or individual acquirers of company; Nation state
adversaries (unlikely, unless company engages in critical infrastructure or national
defense, etc.); Terrorist Organizations. Combating cyber threats will call for a
classification that exploits the very foundation of crime itself - motivation. Until attack
is seen from the view of motivation for the criminals themselves, efforts to battle it will
not yield their full promise. Cyber criminals are driven by time-honored motivations.
Spotting these motivations could be an essential key to find a holistic solution. Not
much research has looked into this important aspect of threats classification. Main
Strategies in the example case are:
•
•
•
•</p>
      <p>Identity Theft: the attacker attacks the end user systems or the corporate assets to
obtain the identities of primarily the end users.</p>
      <p>Financial Data Theft: the attackers obtain sensitive financial information about
endusers or other entities from corporate assets.</p>
      <p>Extortion/Ransom: the attacker obtains the ability to affect corporate assets
negatively (e.g. through denial, destruction, disruption, degradation, distortion, data
exfiltration, etc.) and blackmail the company. The company pays a ransom to avoid
negative consequences.</p>
      <p>Money/Financial Instrument Theft: this is traditional direct theft of money, or
similar financial instruments that can immediately be sold.</p>
      <p>Role of the Malicious Insider is that the insider is simply an agent assisting the main
actors in executing their attacks. The insider may be motivated by any reason. For the
case of money theft, the malicious insider can be a main actor. Possible queries can be
answered based on the model in Fig. 4:</p>
      <p>Threat Modeling Use Case II: Ransomware Modelling
A ransomware is the new form of cybercrime, which victimizes Internet users by
hijacking user files, deleting files from the system, encrypting files and demanding
payment in exchange for the decryption key. Ransomware always tries to grab control
over the victim’s files or computer until the victim agrees to the attacker’s demands. It
searches different file extension such as .txt, .doc, .rft, .ppt, .chm, .cpp, .asm, .db, .db1,
.dbx, .cgi, .dsw, .gzip, .zip, .jpg, .key, etc. It encrypts the data file of the user by using
malicious code. The malicious code should be deleted after encrypting the files. Then it
hides the files of system, and generates static pop up menus in to the system that cannot
be removed from the system. The ransomware propagates itself in to the system by
email spam, or by web files downloading, or via external devices. It is only detected
when a user is not able to access his files, or when a user gets messages informing him
that his data has been encrypted. So far, there is no perfect mechanism to build a perfect
system to detect ransomware. A system can be easily targeted if it is already attacked by
any malware. The following are the main vulnerabilities in user system: careless
browsing, browser weaknesses, no up to date antivirus protection, download unknown
email attachments, pop up menu is enabled. We use i* models to capture the above
scenario in Fig. 5 below.
From the modelling examples above, we conclude that in order to describe the different
threats with different causes and impacts, a context model of the attack is needed, which
involves social modeling of the attack, especially for intentional attacks. In order to limit
the negative impact of the incident, we need to identify vulnerabilities in the social
infrastructure, and to take actions to prevent threats from happening in future, or to
reduce potential loss of a current one, or to recover from a past event, where a social
modelling approach will help work out a viable solution from the social dependency
perspective. It includes: building and evaluating social dependency relationships
network at the macro level, and select the best personal/organization for a certain social
role at the micro level. This can be turned into a social modeling profile of UML with
built-in reasoning abilities. It can further implemented as managerial guidelines or
information systems functionalities.</p>
      <p>Acknowledgments. Partial Financial support by Natural Science Foundation of
China project (no. 61432020) is acknowledged.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Elahi</surname>
            <given-names>G</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Yu</surname>
            <given-names>E</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Zannone</surname>
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>A modeling ontology for integrating vulnerabilities into security requirements conceptual foundations</article-title>
          [C]//International Conference on Conceptual Modeling. Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
          <year>2009</year>
          :
          <fpage>99</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>114</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Firesmith</surname>
            <given-names>D G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>A taxonomy of security-related requirements</article-title>
          [C]//International Workshop on High Assurance
          <source>Systems (RHAS'05)</source>
          .
          <year>2005</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [3]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Myagmar</surname>
            <given-names>S</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lee</surname>
            <given-names>A J</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Yurcik</surname>
            <given-names>W.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Threat modeling as a basis for security requirements[C]//Symposium on requirements engineering for information security</article-title>
          (SREIS).
          <year>2005</year>
          ,
          <year>2005</year>
          :
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>8</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [4]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lin</surname>
            <given-names>L</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Nuseibeh</surname>
            <given-names>B</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ince</surname>
            <given-names>D</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , et al.
          <article-title>Using abuse frames to bound the scope of security problems</article-title>
          [C]//Requirements Engineering Conference,
          <year>2004</year>
          .
          <source>Proceedings. 12th IEEE International. IEEE</source>
          ,
          <year>2004</year>
          :
          <fpage>354</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>355</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Souza</surname>
            <given-names>V E S</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mylopoulos</surname>
            <given-names>J</given-names>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Monitoring and diagnosing malicious attacks with autonomic software</article-title>
          [C]//International Conference on Conceptual Modeling. Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
          <year>2009</year>
          :
          <fpage>84</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>98</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [6]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>Van</given-names>
            <surname>Lamsweerde</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>A. Elaborating security requirements by construction of intentional anti-models[C]//</article-title>
          <source>Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE Computer Society</source>
          ,
          <year>2004</year>
          :
          <fpage>148</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>157</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [7]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Li</surname>
            <given-names>T</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Horkoff</surname>
            <given-names>J</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Paja</surname>
            <given-names>E</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , et al. Analyzing
          <string-name>
            <surname>Attack Strategies Through Anti-goal Refinement</surname>
          </string-name>
          [C]//IFIP Working Conference on
          <source>The Practice of Enterprise Modeling</source>
          . Springer International Publishing,
          <year>2015</year>
          :
          <fpage>75</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>90</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          [8]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dalpiaz</surname>
            <given-names>F</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Paja</surname>
            <given-names>E</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Giorgini</surname>
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Security Requirements Engineering: Designing Secure Socio-Technical Systems</surname>
          </string-name>
          [M]. MIT Press,
          <year>2016</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          [9]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Schumacher</surname>
            <given-names>M</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Fernandez-Buglioni</surname>
            <given-names>E</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hybertson</surname>
            <given-names>D</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , et al.
          <article-title>Security Patterns: Integrating security</article-title>
          and systems engineering[M]. John Wiley &amp; Sons,
          <year>2013</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          [10]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Souag</surname>
            , Amina,
            <given-names>Camille</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Salinesi</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Isabelle</surname>
          </string-name>
          Comyn-Wattiau.
          <article-title>"Ontologies for security requirements: A literature survey and classification</article-title>
          .
          <source>" International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering</source>
          . Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
          <year>2012</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          [11]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Gordon</surname>
            <given-names>S</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ford</surname>
            <given-names>R</given-names>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>On the definition and classification of cybercrime[J]</article-title>
          .
          <source>Journal in Computer Virology</source>
          ,
          <year>2006</year>
          ,
          <volume>2</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>13</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>20</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          [12]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Jürjens</surname>
            <given-names>J</given-names>
          </string-name>
          .
          <source>Secure systems development with UML[M]. Springer Science &amp; Business Media</source>
          ,
          <year>2005</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          [13]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sindre</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Opdahl</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Eliciting security requirements with misuse cases</article-title>
          .
          <source>Requirements Engineering</source>
          <volume>10</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ) (
          <year>2005</year>
          )
          <fpage>34</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>44</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>