Ontology-based Negotiation of security requirements in cloud

Liccardo, Loredana; Rak, Massimiliano; Modica, Giuseppe; Tomarchio, Orazio

doi:10.1109/cason.2012.6412401

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since the match is not Perfect, the client is required to provide additional information or negotiate with the service provider before actually invoking the service. Further details on the negotiation phase that may carried out at this step can be found in [23].…”

Section: Service Capabilities Versus Requestor Requirementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Matchmaking semantic security policies in heterogeneous clouds

Modica

Tomarchio

2016

Future Generation Computer Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Service Capabilities Versus Requestor Requirementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Matchmaking semantic security policies in heterogeneous clouds

Modica

Tomarchio

2016

Future Generation Computer Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…1 ----9 ACM 11 [253] ----1 1 10 ACM 13 [181] 1 --1 -11 ACM 14 [144] 1 1 1 1 -4 12 ACM 16 [28] 1 1 1 1 -13 ACM 17 [53] 1 ----1 14 ACM 18 [262] 1 ----15 ACM 19 [168] 1 ----1 16 ACM 22 [226] 1 1 -1 -17 ACM 23 [176] 1 --1 1 3 18 ACM 24 [227] -----19 ACM 26 [157] 1 ----1 20 ACM 28 [206] -----21 ACM 30 [258] 1 1 -1 -3 22 ACM 32 [5] 1 1 ---23 ACM 34 [80] ------24 ACM 35 [211] 1 1 1 1 -25 ACM 36 [22] --1 --1 26 ACM 37 [54] -----27 ACM 40 [248] 1 1 1 -1 4 28 IEEE 03 [142] 1 1 ---29 IEEE 09 [193] 1 --1 -2 30 IEEE 11 [151] 1 ----31 IEEE 12 [221] 1 1 1 1 1 5 32 IEEE 13 [56] -1 ---33 IEEE 14 [259] 1 ---1 2 34 IEEE 15 [235] 1 1 1 -1 35 IEEE 18 [223] 1 1 -1 -3 36 IEEE 19 [86] 1 1 ---37 IEEE 21 [249] 1 -1 1 -3 38 IEEE 25 [44] 1 --1 1 39 IEEE 26 [4] -----0 40 IEEE 28 [52] 1 ----41 IEEE 30 [160] 1 --1 -2 42 IEEE 33 [95] -----43 IEEE 35 [39] 1 1 -1 -3 44 IEEE 36 [209] 1 ----45 IEEE 38 [147] 1 --1 -2 46 IEEE 41 [96] 1 ----47 IEEE 42 [82] 1 --1 1 3 48 IEEE 48 [50] 1 --1 -49 IEEE 49 [21] 1 ---1 2 50 IEEE 50 [100] 1 1 1 1 1 51 IEEE 51 [110] 1 1 1 --3 52 IEEE 52 [105] 1 ----53 IEEE 54 [25] 1 --1 1 3 54 IEEE 56…”

Section: Signal Processing (Dsp) 2013 18th Internationalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ontologies for Privacy Requirements Engineering: A Systematic Literature Review

Gharib,

Giorgini,

Mylopoulos

2016

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Privacy has been frequently identified as a main concern for system developers while dealing with/managing personal information. Despite this, most existing work on privacy requirements deals with them as a special case of security requirements. Therefore, key aspects of privacy are, usually, overlooked. In this context, wrong design decisions might be made due to insufficient understanding of privacy concerns. In this paper, we address this problem with a systematic literature review whose main purpose is to identify the main concepts/relations for capturing privacy requirements. In addition, the identified concepts/relations are further analyzed to propose a novel privacy ontology to be used by software engineers when dealing with privacy requirements.

show abstract

Section: Service Capabilities Versus Requestor Requirementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Semantic Model to Support Security Matching in Cloud Environments

Modica¹,

Tomarchio²

2013

Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Cloud Computing and Services Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite its technological advances, cloud computing's adoption is not as wide as expected. Security is still a big concern that prevents many to "cloudify" their applications and put their data in the hands of a cloud provider. Also, interoperable scenarios fostered by SOA technologies exacerbate the security question, as customers have to deal with multiple providers who, in their turn, must establish mutual trust relationships in order to interoperate. In the last few years, policies are being used as a means to build networks of trustiness among cloud providers. Standards and specifications on security management through policies have also appeared. We argue that the main problem with this approach is that policies are expressed through syntactic languages which, if processed by computers, show well-known limitations. We then propose an approach that leverages on the semantic technologies to enrich security policies with semantic contents enabling machine reasoning. The framework we developed caters for the security needs of both customers and providers, and aims at making a smart match between what is requested and what is offered in terms of security. On the customer side, no extra effort is required other than specifying their security policies according to well-established security notations; an automatic procedure is charged of adding semantic content to the policies.

show abstract

Ontology-based Negotiation of security requirements in cloud

Cited by 7 publications

References 2 publications

Matchmaking semantic security policies in heterogeneous clouds

Matchmaking semantic security policies in heterogeneous clouds

Ontologies for Privacy Requirements Engineering: A Systematic Literature Review

A Semantic Model to Support Security Matching in Cloud Environments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About