skip to main content
10.1145/3339252.3341496acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaresConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Ontology of Metrics for Cyber Security Assessment

Authors Info & Claims
Published:26 August 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Development of metrics that are valuable for assessing security and decision making is an important element of efficient counteraction to cyber threats. The paper proposes an ontology of metrics for cyber security assessment. The developed ontology is based on determining the concepts and relations between primary features of initial security data and forming a set of hierarchically interconnected security metrics. The paper describes the main classes of the proposed ontology, the revealed relations, the involved security metrics, and the used data sources. The publicly available sources of security data are analyzed to get primary security metrics. Application of the approach is shown on a case study. The main feature of the proposed ontology is representation of security metrics as separate instances of ontology. It allows using the relations between the concepts of ontology for calculating integral metrics reflecting the security state.

References

  1. Igor Kotenko, Elena Doynikova, Andrey Fedorchenko and Andrey Chechulin. 2018. An ontology-based hybrid storage of security information. Information Technology and Control 18, 3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Elena Doynikova, Igor Kotenko. 2018. Approach for determination of cyber attack goals based on the ontology of security metrics. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Vol. 450: Data protection in automation systems.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Matthew Horridge. 2011. A practical guide to building OWL ontologies using Protege 4 and CO-ODE tools. The University Of Manchester.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Protege User Documentation. Retrieved May 20, 2019 from https://protegewiki.stanford.edu/wiki/Main_Page.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Web Ontology Language Overview. Retrieved May 20, 2019 from https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Golnaz Elahi, Eric Yu, Nicola Zannone. 2009. A modeling ontology for integrating vulnerabilities into security requirements conceptual foundations. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5829, 99--114. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Minzhe Guo, Ju An Wang. 2009. An ontology-based approach to model Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures in information security. In Proceedings of the 2009 ASEE Southeast Section Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Ju An Wang, Minzhe Guo. 2009. Security data mining in an ontology for vulnerability management. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Bioinformatics, Systems Biology and Intelligent Computing. Shanghai, 597--603. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Gustavo Gonzalez Granadillo, Yosra Ben Mustapha, Nabil Hachem and Herve Debar. 2012. An ontology-based model for SIEM environments, Global Security, Safety and Sustainability & e-Democracy. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Igor Kotenko, Olga Polubelova, Igor Saenko and Elena Doynikova. 2013. The ontology of metrics for security evaluation and decision support in SIEM systems. In Proceedings of the ARES 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Mary C. Parmelee. 2010. Toward an ontology architecture for cyber-security standards. In Proceedings of the 2010 Semantic Technology for Intelligence, Defense, and Security. Fairfax, 116--123.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Zareen Syed, Ankur Padia, Tim Finin, Lisa Mathews and Anupam Joshi. 2016. UCO: a Unified Cybersecurity Ontology. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Artificial Intelligence for Cyber Security. Phoenix, Arizona, USA, 195--202.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Unified Cybersecurity Ontology. Retrieved May 20, 2019 from https://github.com/Ebiquity/Unified-Cybersecurity-Ontology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Sara Javanmardi, Morteza Amini, Rasool Jalili and Yasser Ganjisaffar. 2006. SBAC: a Semantic-Based Access Control model.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Bruno Mozzaquatro, Raquel Melo, Carlos Agostinho and Ricardo Jardim-Goncalves. 2016. An ontology-based security framework for decision-making in industrial systems. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development, 779--788.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Claudia Marinica. 2010. Association Rule Interactive Post-processing using Rule Schemas and Ontologies - ARIPSO.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Adi Aviad, Krzysztof Węcel, Witold Abramowicz. 2015. The semantic aproach to cyber security. Towards ontology based body of knowledge. In Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security, 328--336.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Igor Kotenko, Andrey Fedorchenko and Andrey Chechulin. 2015. Integrated repository of security information for network security evaluation. Journal of Wireless Mobile Networks, Ubiquitous Computing, and Dependable Applications 6, 41--57.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Elena Doynikova, Igor Kotenko. 2017. CVSS-based probabilistic risk assessment for cyber situational awareness and countermeasure selection. In Proceedings of the 25th Euromicro International Conference on Parallel, Distributed and Network-Based Processing (PDP 2017). IEEE, St. Petersburg, Russia.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Peter M. Mell, Karen A. Scarfone and Sasha Romanosky. 2007. A Complete Guide to the Common Vulnerability Scoring System Version 2.0. FIRST Forum Incident Response Security Teams.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. David Waltermire, Paul Cichonski and Karen Scarfone. 2011. Common Platform Enumeration: Applicability Language Specification Version 2.3. NISTIR 7698.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. FIRST. 2015. Common Vulnerability Scoring System v3.0: Specification Document. Forum Incid Response Secur Teams.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Elena Doynikova, Andrey Chechulin and Igor Kotenko. 2017. Analytical attack modeling and security assessment based on the common vulnerability scoring system. In Proceedings of the FRUCT 2017. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    ARES '19: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security
    August 2019
    979 pages
    ISBN:9781450371643
    DOI:10.1145/3339252

    Copyright © 2019 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 26 August 2019

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate228of451submissions,51%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader