skip to main content
10.1145/2304656.2304660acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescomparchConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Fault-tolerant techniques and security mechanisms for model-based performance prediction of critical systems

Published:25 June 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

Security attacks aim to system vulnerabilities that may lead to operational failures. In order to react to attacks software designers use to introduce Fault-Tolerant Techniques (FTTs), such as recovery procedures, and/or Security Mechanisms (SMs), such as encryption of data. FTTs and SMs inevitably consume system resources, hence they influence the system performance, even affecting its full operability.

The goal of this paper is to provide a model-based methodology able to quantitatively estimate the performance degradation due to the introduction of FTTs and/or SMs aimed at protecting critical systems. Such a methodology is able to inform software designers about the performance degradation the system may incur, thus supporting them to find appropriate security strategies while meeting performance requirements. This approach has been applied to a case study in the E-commerce domain, whose experimental results demonstrate its effectiveness.

References

  1. M. Ajmone Marsan, G. Balbo, G. Conte, S. Donatelli, and G. Franceschinis. Modelling with Generalized Stochastic Petri Nets. Wiley Series in Parallel Computing. John Wiley and Sons, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. D. Ariu, R. Tronci, and G. Giacinto. HMMPayl: An intrusion detection system based on Hidden Markov Models. Computers & Security, 30(4):221--241, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. A. Avizienis, J.-C. Laprie, B. Randell, and C. Landwehr. Basic Concepts and Taxonomy of Dependable and Secure Computing. Dependable and Secure Computing, IEEE Transactions on, 1(1):11--33, jan.-march 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. S. Balsamo, A. Di Marco, P. Inverardi, and M. Simeoni. Model-Based Performance Prediction in Software Development: A Survey. IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 30(5):295--310, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. M. Blaze, J. Ioannidis, and A. D. Keromytis. Trust Management for IPsec. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur., 5(2):95--118, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. A. Cilardo, L. Coppolino, A. Mazzeo, and L. Romano. Performance Evaluation of Security Services: An Experimental Approach. In Proceedings of the 15th Euromicro International Conference on Parallel, Distributed and Network-Based Processing, PDP '07, pages 387--394, Washington, DC, USA, 2007. IEEE Computer Society. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. V. Cortellessa and C. Trubiani. Towards a library of composable models to estimate the performance of security solutions. In Workshop on Software and Performance (WOSP), pages 145--156, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. V. Cortellessa, C. Trubiani, L. Mostarda, and N. Dulay. An Architectural Framework for Analyzing Tradeoffs between Software Security and Performance. In H. Giese, editor, ISARCS'10: Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Architecting Critical Systems, volume 6150 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 1--18. Springer, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. V. Cortellessa, C. Trubiani, L. Mostarda, and N. Dulay. An Architectural Framework for Analyzing Tradeoffs between Software Security and Performance - Extended results . Technical report, Università degli Studi dell'Aquila, 2010. TRCS 001/2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. J. Delatour and F. de Lamotte. ArgoPN: a CASE Tool Merging UML and Petri Nets. In P. T. Isaías, F. Sedes, J. C. Augusto, and U. Ultes-Nitsche, editors, NDDL/VVEIS, pages 94--102. ICEIS Press, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. S. Distefano, M. Scarpa, and A. Puliafito. From UML to Petri Nets: The PCM-Based Methodology. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 37(1):65--79, jan.-feb. 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. L. Garber. Denial-of-Service Attacks Rip the Internet. IEEE Computer, 33(4):12--17, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. E. Gómez-Martínez and J. Merseguer. ArgoSPE: Model-Based Software Performance Engineering. In International Conference of Application and Theory of Petri Nets, pages 401--410, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. V. Gupta, S. Gupta, S. C. Shantz, and D. Stebila. Performance Analysis of Elliptic Curve Cryptography for SSL. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM workshop on Wireless security, WiSE '02, pages 87--94, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. M. B. Juric, I. Rozman, B. Brumen, M. Colnaric, and M. Hericko. Comparison of performance of Web services, WS-Security, RMI, and RMI-SSL. J. Syst. Softw., 79:689--700, May 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. K. Kant, R. Iyer, and P. Mohapatra. Architectural Impact of Secure Socket Layer on Internet Servers. In Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE International Conference on Computer Design: VLSI in Computers & Processors, ICCD '00, pages 7--14, Washington, DC, USA, 2000. IEEE Computer Society. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. F. Lagarde, H. Espinoza, F. Terrier, and S. Gérard. Improving UML Profile Design Practices by Leveraging Conceptual Domain Models. In Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE'07, pages 445--448, New York, NY, USA, November 2007. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. D. A. Menascé and A. F. A. Virgilio. Scaling for E-Business: Technologies, Models, Performance, and Capacity Planning. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1st edition, May 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. D. Menascé. Security Performance. IEEE Internet Computing, 7(3):84--87, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. OMG. Unified Modelling Language: Superstructure. Object Management Group, July 2005. Version 2.0, formal/05-07-04.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. OMG. A UML profile for Modeling and Analysis of Real Time Embedded Systems (MARTE). Object Management Group, 2009. Document ptc/09-11-02.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. R. J. Rodríguez, J. Júlvez, and J. Merseguer. PeabraiN: A PIPE Extension for Performance Estimation and Resource Optimisation. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Application of Concurrency to System Designs, 2012. Accepted for publication. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. R. J. Rodríguez and J. Merseguer. Integrating Fault-Tolerant Techniques into the Design of Critical Systems. In H. Giese, editor, Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Architecting Critical Systems (ISARCS), volume 6150 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 33--51, Prague, Czech Republic, June 2010. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. R. J. Rodríguez, J. Merseguer, and S. Bernardi. Modelling and Analysing Resilience as a Security Issue within UML. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Software Engineering for Resilient Systems (SERENE), London, United Kingdom, April 2010. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. R. J. Rodríguez, J. Merseguer, and S. Bernardi. A Security Analysis and Modelling profile: an Overview. Technical Report RR-01-11, Dpto. de Ingeniería e Informática de Sistemas, Universidad de Zaragoza, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. B. Selic. A Systematic Approach to Domain-Specific Language Design Using UML. In 10th IEEE Int. Symposium on Object and Component-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing (ISORC), pages 2--9, Santorini Island, Greece, May 2007. IEEE Computer Society. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. P. Sousa, A. Bessani, M. Correia, N. Neves, and P. Verissimo. Highly Available Intrusion-Tolerant Services with Proactive-Reactive Recovery. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 21(4):452--465, april 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. M. Woodside, D. C. Petriu, D. B. Petriu, J. Xu, T. Israr, G. Georg, R. France, J. M. Bieman, S. H. Houmb, and J. Jürjens. Performance analysis of security aspects by weaving scenarios extracted from UML models. J. Syst. Softw., 82:56--74, January 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Fault-tolerant techniques and security mechanisms for model-based performance prediction of critical systems

        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 Conferences
          ISARCS '12: Proceedings of the 3rd international ACM SIGSOFT symposium on Architecting Critical Systems
          June 2012
          80 pages
          ISBN:9781450313476
          DOI:10.1145/2304656

          Copyright © 2012 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: 25 June 2012

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          ISARCS '12 Paper Acceptance Rate7of18submissions,39%Overall Acceptance Rate14of30submissions,47%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader