Elevating Software Trust: Unveiling and Quantifying the Risk Landscape

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.02876v2
• Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2024 01:22:23 GMT
• Title: Elevating Software Trust: Unveiling and Quantifying the Risk Landscape
• Authors: Sarah Ali Siddiqui, Chandra Thapa, Rayne Holland, Wei Shao, Seyit Camtepe,
• Abstract summary: We propose a risk assessment framework called SAFER (Software Analysis Framework for Evaluating Risk) This framework is based on the necessity of a dynamic, data-driven, and adaptable process to quantify security risk in the software supply chain. The results suggest that SAFER mitigates subjectivity and yields dynamic data-driven weights as well as security risk scores.
• Score: 9.428116807615407
• License:
• Abstract: Considering the ever-evolving threat landscape and rapid changes in software development, we propose a risk assessment framework called SAFER (Software Analysis Framework for Evaluating Risk). This framework is based on the necessity of a dynamic, data-driven, and adaptable process to quantify security risk in the software supply chain. Usually, when formulating such frameworks, static pre-defined weights are assigned to reflect the impact of each contributing parameter while aggregating these individual parameters to compute resulting security risk scores. This leads to inflexibility, a lack of adaptability, and reduced accuracy, making them unsuitable for the changing nature of the digital world. We adopt a novel perspective by examining security risk through the lens of trust and incorporating the human aspect. Moreover, we quantify security risk associated with individual software by assessing and formulating risk elements quantitatively and exploring dynamic data-driven weight assignment. This enhances the sensitivity of the framework to cater to the evolving security risk factors associated with software development and the different actors involved in the entire process. The devised framework is tested through a dataset containing 9000 samples, comprehensive scenarios, assessments, and expert opinions. Furthermore, a comparison between scores computed by the OpenSSF scorecard, OWASP risk calculator, and the proposed SAFER framework has also been presented. The results suggest that SAFER mitigates subjectivity and yields dynamic data-driven weights as well as security risk scores.

Related papers

• Resilient Cloud cluster with DevSecOps security model, automates a data analysis, vulnerability search and risk calculation [0.0]
  The article presents the main methods of deploying web applications, ways to increase the level of information security at all stages of product development. The cloud cluster was deployed using Terraform and the Jenkins pipeline, which checks program code for vulnerabilities. The algorithm for calculating risk and losses is based on statistical data and the concept of the FAIR information risk assessment methodology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-15T13:11:48Z)
• A Human-Centered Risk Evaluation of Biometric Systems Using Conjoint Analysis [0.6199770411242359]
  This paper presents a novel human-centered risk evaluation framework using conjoint analysis to quantify the impact of risk factors, such as surveillance cameras, on attacker's motivation. Our framework calculates risk values incorporating the False Acceptance Rate (FAR) and attack probability, allowing comprehensive comparisons across use cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-17T14:18:21Z)
• EARBench: Towards Evaluating Physical Risk Awareness for Task Planning of Foundation Model-based Embodied AI Agents [53.717918131568936]
  Embodied artificial intelligence (EAI) integrates advanced AI models into physical entities for real-world interaction. Foundation models as the "brain" of EAI agents for high-level task planning have shown promising results. However, the deployment of these agents in physical environments presents significant safety challenges. This study introduces EARBench, a novel framework for automated physical risk assessment in EAI scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-08T13:19:37Z)
• Mapping LLM Security Landscapes: A Comprehensive Stakeholder Risk Assessment Proposal [0.0]
  We propose a risk assessment process using tools like the risk rating methodology which is used for traditional systems. We conduct scenario analysis to identify potential threat agents and map the dependent system components against vulnerability factors. We also map threats against three key stakeholder groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-20T05:17:22Z)
• ASSERT: Automated Safety Scenario Red Teaming for Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Models [65.79770974145983]
  ASSERT, Automated Safety Scenario Red Teaming, consists of three methods -- semantically aligned augmentation, target bootstrapping, and adversarial knowledge injection. We partition our prompts into four safety domains for a fine-grained analysis of how the domain affects model performance. We find statistically significant performance differences of up to 11% in absolute classification accuracy among semantically related scenarios and error rates of up to 19% absolute error in zero-shot adversarial settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-14T17:10:28Z)
• A Counterfactual Safety Margin Perspective on the Scoring of Autonomous Vehicles' Riskiness [52.27309191283943]
  This paper presents a data-driven framework for assessing the risk of different AVs' behaviors. We propose the notion of counterfactual safety margin, which represents the minimum deviation from nominal behavior that could cause a collision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-02T09:48:08Z)
• Leveraging Traceability to Integrate Safety Analysis Artifacts into the Software Development Process [51.42800587382228]
  Safety assurance cases (SACs) can be challenging to maintain during system evolution. We propose a solution that leverages software traceability to connect relevant system artifacts to safety analysis models. We elicit design rationales for system changes to help safety stakeholders analyze the impact of system changes on safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-14T16:03:27Z)
• A robust statistical framework for cyber-vulnerability prioritisation under partial information in threat intelligence [0.0]
  This work introduces a robust statistical framework for quantitative and qualitative reasoning under uncertainty about cyber-vulnerabilities. We identify a novel accuracy measure suited for rank in variance under partial knowledge of the whole set of existing vulnerabilities. We discuss the implications of partial knowledge about cyber-vulnerabilities on threat intelligence and decision-making in operational scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-16T15:05:43Z)
• Foveate, Attribute, and Rationalize: Towards Physically Safe and Trustworthy AI [76.28956947107372]
  Covertly unsafe text is an area of particular interest, as such text may arise from everyday scenarios and are challenging to detect as harmful. We propose FARM, a novel framework leveraging external knowledge for trustworthy rationale generation in the context of safety. Our experiments show that FARM obtains state-of-the-art results on the SafeText dataset, showing absolute improvement in safety classification accuracy by 5.9%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-19T17:51:47Z)
• Risk-Driven Design of Perception Systems [47.787943101699966]
  It is important that we design perception systems to minimize errors that reduce the overall safety of the system. We develop a risk-driven approach to designing perception systems that accounts for the effect of perceptual errors on the performance of the fully-integrated, closed-loop system. We evaluate our techniques on a realistic vision-based aircraft detect and avoid application and show that risk-driven design reduces collision risk by 37% over a baseline system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-21T21:14:56Z)
• Modeling and mitigation of occupational safety risks in dynamic industrial environments [0.0]
  This article proposes a method to enable continuous and quantitative assessment of safety risks in a data-driven manner. A fully Bayesian approach is developed to calibrate this model from safety data in an online fashion. The proposed model can be leveraged for automated decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-02T13:04:25Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.