Quantitative Analysis of Network Security with Abstract Argumentation
An Abstract Argumentation Framework (AAF) represents a useful technique for the analysis of arguments supporting or discouraging decisions (i.e., information can be in conflict). In particular, we apply Abstract Argumentation to support the administration
- PDF / 823,859 Bytes
- 17 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 106 Downloads / 206 Views
Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica, Universit` a di Perugia, Perugia, Italy [email protected] 2 Instituto di Informatica e Telematica, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Pisa, Italy [email protected]
Abstract. An Abstract Argumentation Framework (AAF) represents a useful technique for the analysis of arguments supporting or discouraging decisions (i.e., information can be in conflict). In particular, we apply Abstract Argumentation to support the administration of security in computer networks. Our approach captures the high-level topology of a system and helps to specify which and where security countermeasures are more appropriate. We design a quantitative analysis on AAFs (modelling our domain knowledge) with the purpose to compare different decisions and select the most suitable one to protect the critical assets.
1
Introduction
Arguments distinguish themselves from proofs by the fact that they are defeasible, that is, the validity of their conclusions can be disputed by other arguments. Therefore, whether an argument is accepted depends on the existence of possible counterarguments, which can themselves be attacked by other counterarguments (and so on). Nowadays, a part of research on the topic of Argumentation Theory is based on Abstract Argumentation [13]. The central concept in this work is an Abstract Argumentation Framework (AAF), which is essentially a directed graph A, R in which arguments A are represented as nodes, and attack relations R are represented by directed edges. Given an AAF, one can find all accepted arguments depending on the selected argumentation semantics, which is defined by a certain degree of scepticism or credulousness. In this work we focus on the application of Abstract Argumentation for decision-making during the risk management of an IT system. We assume that the administrator of the considered system has already identified the main threats, and would like to check whether the installed security controls are sufficient to maintain the risk level at minimum. Such analysis may be used F. Santini supported by GNCS-INDAM “Efficient Methods for Argumentation-based Decision Support”. A. Yautsiukhin supported by H2020-MSCA-ITN “European Network on Computer Security” (675320) and the PRIN Security Horizons project. c Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 J. Garcia-Alfaro et al. (Eds.): DPM and QASA 2015, LNCS 9481, pp. 30–46, 2016. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-29883-2 3
Quantitative Analysis of Network Security with Abstract Argumentation
31
separately, or as a part of the overall risk assessment process (see, for example, [1,11,14,16,24]). The main goal of any risk assessment is to check whether the security goals are achieved (e.g., to protect critical assets). Moreover, security should not violate the core business goals for operating the system. For example, security controls should not significantly impact its productivity. In addition, some controls may conflict with each other, reducing the overall security level. Usually, the three steps
Data Loading...
