Model Driven Security of Extending State Chart Notation Encryption

SEEE DIGIBOOK ON ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 01, DEC 2019 PP.(301-306)
Abstract– Providing evidence that support is being given for the state diagrams security issue. New documentation set that expands the scope of the documentation for UML state diagrams. The use of semantics is necessary for state-based security. Over the course of the past decade, model-driven security has developed into an increasingly dynamic field of investigation. Although a great number of research works have made significant contributions toward achieving this objective by adapting well-known demonstrating documentations to model security perspectives, there has been relatively little demonstrating support for state-based perspectives of security issues. This framework makes an attempt to investigate and deal with the problem of proposing an additional notational set that augments the documentation for UML (Unified Modeling Language) statecharts. An online mechanistic review was carried out in order to evaluate the new documentation with regard to the semantic clearness of its explanations and the extent to which it can demonstrate state-based security viewpoints. The analysis results demonstrate that the new documentation contains the set of semantics that are necessary for a state-based security displaying dialect. Furthermore, the new documentation was found to be incredibly natural to use and understand, even with very little prior training. In addition, it was directed that a subject-based observational assessment be conducted with the assistance of programming building specialists in order to evaluate the psychological adequacy of the proposed documentation. The most important realization was that the new documentation is psychologically more powerful than the initial notational set of UML statecharts. This was due to the fact that it enabled the subjects to read models that were made using the new documentation much more quickly.
Index Terms – Statecharts, Security modeling, Extended notation, Industrial survey, and Subject-based experiment are some of the terms that are included in the index.
REFERENCE

[1] E. G. Amoroso, Fundamentals of Computer Security Technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1994.
[2] W. A. Arbaugh, W. L. Fithen, and J. McHugh, “Windows of vulnerability: A case study analysis,” IEEE Comput., vol. 33, no. 12, pp. 52–59, Dec. 2000. [3] N. Baddoo and T. Hall, “Motivators of software process improvement: An analysis of practitioners’ views,” J. Syst. Softw., vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 85–96, 2002. [4] D. Balzarotti, M. Cova, V. V. Felmetsger, and G. Vigna, “Multimodule vulnerability analysis of web- 306
based applications,” in Proc. 14th ACM Conf. Comput. Commun. Security, 2007, pp. 25–35.
[5] M. Bar and M. Neta, “Humans prefer curved visual objects,” Psychol. Sci., vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 645–648, 2006.
[6] D. A. Basin, J. Doser, and T. Lodderstedt, “Model driven security for process-oriented systems,” in Proc. 8th ACM Symp. Access Control Models Technol., 2003, pp. 100–109.
[7] J. Bertin, Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams, Networks, Maps. Madison, WI, USA: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1983.
[8] C. Britton and S. Jones, “The untrained eye: How languages for software specification support understanding in untrained users,” Human–Comput. Interact., vol. 14, nos. 1–2, pp. 191–244, 1999.
[9] R. J. A. Buhr, D. Amyot, M. Elammari, D. Quesnel, T. Gray, and S. Mankovski, “Feature-interaction visualisation and resolution in an agent environment,” in Proc. Feature Interactions Telecommun. Softw. Syst. V, 1998, pp. 135–149.
[10] C. C. Burt, B. R. Bryant, R. R. Raje, A. Olson, and M. Auguston, “Model driven security: Unification of authorization models for fine-grain access control,” in Proc. Enterprise Distrib. Object Comput. Conf., 2003, pp. 159–171.
[11] A. Blackwell. (2009). Cognitive dimensions of notations resource site. [Online]. Available: http:// www.cl.cam.ac.uk/afb21/CognitiveDimensions/
[12] A. Blackwell and T. Green, “Notational systems— the cognitive dimensions of notations framework,” in HCI Models Theories Framework Interdisciplinary Science. San Mateo, CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann, 2003.
[13] J. Dagit, J. Lawrance, C. Neumann, M. Burnett, R. Metoyer, and S. Adams, “Using cognitive dimensions: Advice from the trenches,” J. Visual Languages Comput., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 302–327, 2006.
[14] A. Dardenne, A. van Lamsweerde, and S. Fickas, “Goal-directed requirements acquisition,” Sci. Comput. Program., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 3–50, 1993.
[15] T. DeMarco, Structured Analysis and System Specification. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458: Yourdon Press, 1979.
[16] E. Dubois and S. Wu, “A framework for dealing with and specifying security requirements in information systems,” in Proc. Inform. Syst. Security, 1996, pp. 88–99.
[17] O. El Ariss, W. Jianfei, and X. Dianxiang, “Towards an enhanced design level security: Integrating attack trees with statecharts,” in Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Secure Softw. Integr. Rel. Improvement, 2011, pp. 1–10.
[18] M. El-Attar (2013, May). Companion website to security enabled statecharts research. [Online]. Available: http://faculty.kfupm.edu.sa/ICS/melattar/ ExtendedStatechartsNotationFiles.html
[19] C. Ericson, “Fault tree analysis—a history,” in Proc. 17th Int. Syst. Safety Conf., 1999, pp. 1–9.

Dhanabal S, Sreenivasalu Manda V
Department of Information Technology,
Rathinam Technical Campus,
Coimbatore, India

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top