Ontology-Based System for Dynamic Risk Management in Administrative Domains

Vega-Barbas, Mario; Villagrá, Víctor A.; Monje, Fernando; Riesco, Raúl; Larriva-Novo, Xavier; Berrocal, Julio

doi:10.3390/app9214547

Cited by 9 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The tools used for the ontology development usually incorporate languages that help in the definition of ontologies. We observe that 24% (12 papers) of the relevant documents (Chukkapalli et al, 2020;Vega Barbas et al, 2019;Doynikova et al, 2019;Zheng et al, 2018;Petrenko and Makoveichuk, 2017;Elnagdy et al, 2016;Falk, 2016;Iannacone et al, 2015;Salem and Wacek, 2015;Laskey et al, 2015) report the use of the OWL language (Dean and Schreiber, 2003).…”

Section: Table 5 Ontology Classification By Used Toolsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…As shown in Figure 1, the first ontology related to cybersecurity was reported in 2004 (Simmonds et al, 2004), from that year onwards, other works sporadically arise, it is from 2014 that the number of ontologies related to cybersecurity increases, for example in 2019 eleven ontologies were reported (Burita, 2019;Vega Barbas et al, 2019;Gasmi et al, 2019;Doynikova et al, 2019;Scarpato et al, 2019;Niyazova et al, 2019;Islam et al, 2019;Baesso Moreira et al, 2019;Katsantonis et al, 2019;Shaaban et al, 2019;Zamfira et al, 2019). It is worth to note that the relevant papers used in this SLR were subjected to a quality assessment.…”

Section: Executionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cybersecurity Ontologies: A Systematic LiteratureReview

Rivadeneira¹,

Gómez

de³

2021

recibe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cybersecurity is a young discipline that has gained relevance in our modern society.Thisresearchreportsthefindingsofasystematicreviewoftheliteratureonontologiesinthefieldofcybersecurity. From an initial set of 214 papers on the subject, 50 relevant papers were selected forthis SLR. With these documents we answered research questions related to the domains in whichontologies are reported, the methodologies, tools and languages used, and the verification andvalidation mechanisms reported. As results, we observed that the largest number of ontologies areclassified in the domains of infrastructure and networking, software and human factor. Regardingthe papers that report the use of a methodology for developing the ontologies (12%), Methontologyis the commonly used one. Protégé, in conjunction with the OWL language, are the preferred toolsfor ontology development. Regarding verification and validation (V&V) mechanisms, we observethat morethanhalf(62%) reporttheapplicationofV&Vmechanisms totheir ontologies.

show abstract

Section: Table 5 Ontology Classification By Used Toolsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Executionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cybersecurity Ontologies: A Systematic LiteratureReview

Rivadeneira¹,

Gómez

de³

2021

recibe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to [22] , there is no clear de nition for the notion of more secure, and thus cyber security metrics should be leveraged and integrated in the security assessment. The authors in [23] discuss that traditional approaches normally take a snapshot of an organisation at a given time, at which point cyber security metrics would be generated. Hence, the author in [24] argues that cyber security metrics can be used to benchmark various systems if the conditions of the assessment are maintained.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, the authors in [27] found that when the number of vulnerabilities become large, the cyber security metrics' values become static. The authors in [23] argue that a static cyber risk management approach may become obsolete very quickly because many parameters used in the analysis constantly change over time.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

The SMART approach to develop good cyber security metrics

Sherif

Yevseyeva

Basto‐Fernandes

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When it comes to the need to manage cyber security, identifying and utilising good cyber security metrics is essential. This allows organisations to manage their cyber risk more effectively. However, the literature lacks consensus on properties and characteristics of good metrics. We join the current efforts that aim at closing this gap. Hence, the main two objectives of this work are firstly to explore and identify relevant cyber security metrics proposed by researchers in the cyber security domain, and then to assess them against the SMART (Specific, Measurable, Actionable, Relevant, and Timely) criteria to determine their feasibility and improve the quality of the selected security metrics. We identified 100 relevant metrics, of which 22 were able to be assessed against the SMART criteria. The resulting set of metrics can be considered as feasible set of metrics to implement. Additionally, we have identified the properties that a good metric should possess, most of which can be regarded as variants of the SMART criteria. Consequently, we extend the subcategories proposed by [1] to enhance the categorisation of metrics. The proposed subcategories are user, interface-induced, and software vulnerabilities; preventative, reactive, proactive defence strength; zero-day, targeted, botnet, malware, and evasion techniques; and security state, incidents, and investment. We propose to include the following: configuration management, access control management, backup and restore, security audit, security testing, and security training. Additionally, we recommend including two additional elements when assessing metrics wherein the metrics should be inexpensive to gather and independently verifiable via an outside reference.

show abstract

“…Other works only focus on specific physical threats such as flooding [63]. In another hand, cyber incident propagation has been studied in [64] and [65]. The latter focuses on risks in administrative domains.…”

Section: B Incident Propagation Models and Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Semantic-Based Approach for Cyber-Physical Cascading Effects Within Healthcare Infrastructures

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a framework for integrated cyber-physical security propagation study within critical infrastructures (hospitals use case). The framework includes an ontology for the semantic modeling of cyber-physical security. The impact propagation approach relies on propagation rules inferring the cascading effects of security incidents occurring in hospitals. An impact score module allows evaluating impacts' severity, considering implemented protection measures. This work is part of the European project SAFECARE, which provides a set of tests and demonstration sessions in partnership with 3 hospitals in Europe. During these tests, we measured effectiveness and efficiency metrics, as well as end users' satisfaction feedback. Experiments performed on real attack scenarios, show high effectiveness rates and a common agreement from end-users about the added value of the solution to enhance risks analysis practice and increase hospitals mitigation strategies efficiency.

show abstract

Ontology-Based System for Dynamic Risk Management in Administrative Domains

Cited by 9 publications

References 15 publications

Cybersecurity Ontologies: A Systematic LiteratureReview

Cybersecurity Ontologies: A Systematic LiteratureReview

The SMART approach to develop good cyber security metrics

Semantic-Based Approach for Cyber-Physical Cascading Effects Within Healthcare Infrastructures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About