Less Manual Work for Safety Engineers: Towards an Automated Safety Reasoning with Safety Patterns

Dantas, Yuri Gil; Kondeva, Antoaneta; Nigam, Vivek

doi:10.4204/eptcs.325.29

Cited by 2 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We have recently proposed the use of KRR for hardening system architectures using safety patterns [5]. The main outcome of this work was SafPat.…”

Section: Knowledge Bases For Safety and Security System Architecturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This paper substantially extends the previously developed SafPat. More concretely, we extend SafPat [5] in the following ways:…”

Section: Knowledge Bases For Safety and Security System Architecturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 Semantically-rich architectural pattern descriptions enable increased automated support during system design. In our previous work [5], we demonstrate how system safety design can be automated by using semantically-rich safety patterns encoded as knowledge bases [3], e.g., checking whether a safety pattern placed in the system architecture can be correctly used to attain a safety goal. This paper's main goal is to enable safety and security co-design automation by using semanticallyrich architectural patterns.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…• Domain-Specific Language (DSL): We considerably extend our previous work [5] with a DSL for security, and for safety and security co-design. Moreover, we improve our DSL for safety to, e.g., more precisely specify the intent of safety patterns.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Notice that our machinery (described below) currently supports ten patterns. • Reasoning Principles: We extend the safety reasoning principles proposed in our previous work [5] increasing their precision by , e.g., considering when a safety pattern fails operational. We specify security reasoning principles, e.g., path reachability used to determine whether an attack can pose a threat to some sub-component from outside the system, and when a…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Automating Safety and Security Co-Design through Semantically-Rich Architecture Patterns

Dantas¹,

Nigam²

2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the design of safety-critical systems, safety and security engineers make use of architectural patterns, such as Watchdog and Firewall, to address identified failures and threats. Often, however, the deployment of safety patterns has consequences on security, e.g., the deployment of a safety pattern may lead to new threats. The other way around may also be possible, i.e., the deployment of a security pattern may lead to new failures. Safety and security co-design is, therefore, required to understand such consequences and trade-offs, in order to reach appropriate system designs. Currently, pattern descriptions, including their consequences, are described using natural language. Therefore, their deployment in system design is carried out manually, thus time-consuming and prone to human-error, especially given the high system complexity. We propose the use of semantically-rich architectural patterns to enable automated support for safety and security co-design by using Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KRR) methods. Based on our domain-specific language, we specify reasoning principles as logic specifications written as answer-set programs. KRR engines enable the automation of safety and security co-engineering activities, including the automated recommendation of which architectural patterns can address failures or threats and consequences of deploying such patterns. We demonstrate our approach on an example taken from the ISO 21434 standard.

show abstract

“…We have recently proposed the use of KRR for hardening system architectures using safety patterns [5]. The main outcome of this work was SafPat.…”

Section: Knowledge Bases For Safety and Security System Architecturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This paper substantially extends the previously developed SafPat. More concretely, we extend SafPat [5] in the following ways:…”

Section: Knowledge Bases For Safety and Security System Architecturementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Automating Safety and Security Co-Design through Semantically-Rich Architecture Patterns

Dantas¹,

Nigam²

2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Automating Safety and Security Co-design through Semantically Rich Architecture Patterns

Dantas

Nigam

2023

ACM Trans. Cyber-Phys. Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the design of safety-critical systems, safety and security engineers make use of architecture patterns, such as Watchdog and Firewall, to address identified failures and threats. Often, however, the deployment of safety architecture patterns has consequences on security, e.g., the deployment of a safety architecture pattern may lead to new threats. The other way around may also be possible, i.e., the deployment of a security architecture pattern may lead to new failures. Safety and security co-design is, therefore, required to understand such consequences and trade-offs, in order to reach appropriate system designs. Currently, architecture pattern descriptions, including their consequences, are described using natural language. Therefore, their deployment in system design is carried out manually by experts, thus time-consuming and prone to human-error, especially given the high system complexity. We propose the use of semantically-rich architecture patterns to enable automated support for safety and security co-design by using Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KRR) methods. Based on our domain-specific language, we specify reasoning principles as logic specifications written as answer-set programs. KRR engines enable the automation of safety and security co-engineering activities, including the automated recommendation of which architecture patterns can address failures or threats, and consequences of deploying such patterns. We demonstrate our approach on an example taken from the ISO 21434 standard.

show abstract

Less Manual Work for Safety Engineers: Towards an Automated Safety Reasoning with Safety Patterns

Cited by 2 publications

References 10 publications

Automating Safety and Security Co-Design through Semantically-Rich Architecture Patterns

Automating Safety and Security Co-Design through Semantically-Rich Architecture Patterns

Automating Safety and Security Co-design through Semantically Rich Architecture Patterns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About