2017
DOI: 10.1007/s00766-017-0279-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: Abstract. [Context and motivation]Security requirements are known to be "the most difficult of requirements types", and potentially the ones causing the greatest risk if they are not correct. One approach to requirements elicitation is based on the reuse of explicit knowledge. AMAN-DA is a requirement elicitation method that reuses encapsulated knowledge in security and domain ontologies to produce security requirements specifications.[Question/Problem] The main research question addressed in this paper is to … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…(Arora, et al 2013) and (Arora, et al 2015) provide additional insight by supporting the automatic compliance of the requirements using NL processing techniques for the verification of requirements, something that our work does not raise and that will be part of later work on the automatic verification of the requirements. In addition, (Arora, et al 2013) also presents a flexible template to specify requirements that can be adapted to different styles of writing requirements and other proposals such as (Souag, et al 2018) go even further by allowing the automatic generation of non-functional requirements (security in particular) in semi-structured NL thanks to the use of two ontologies: a security ontology (Souag, et al 2015) and a domain-specific ontology. In contrast, our proposal is agnostic to the type of non-functional requirements; however, it should be inspired in the future by the related work to facilitate the writing of requirements.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(Arora, et al 2013) and (Arora, et al 2015) provide additional insight by supporting the automatic compliance of the requirements using NL processing techniques for the verification of requirements, something that our work does not raise and that will be part of later work on the automatic verification of the requirements. In addition, (Arora, et al 2013) also presents a flexible template to specify requirements that can be adapted to different styles of writing requirements and other proposals such as (Souag, et al 2018) go even further by allowing the automatic generation of non-functional requirements (security in particular) in semi-structured NL thanks to the use of two ontologies: a security ontology (Souag, et al 2015) and a domain-specific ontology. In contrast, our proposal is agnostic to the type of non-functional requirements; however, it should be inspired in the future by the related work to facilitate the writing of requirements.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Security goals and requirements can be distinguished and written in different patterns. A case study is conducted in the maritime industry to identify stakeholders' security goals, and participants have agreed on the model's success (Souag, Mazo, Salinesi, & Comyn-Wattiau, 2018). Toval, Nicolás, Moros, & García (2002) propose a method called SIREN (Simple Reuse of Software Requirements), which focuses on the reuse of security requirements.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In summary, requirement writing methods use either too specific and sophisticated approaches like formal notations and domain ontologies (Siau, 2016;Yue et al, 2019) or focus on a specific type of requirements, such as stakeholder and non-functional requirements (Souag et al, 2018;Toval et al, 2002;Franch et al, 2010). Sophisticated approaches are almost impossible to be implemented in industry practices (Siau, 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%