Assurance-Level Driven Method for Integrating Security into SDLC Process
0 likes302 views
This document presents a comprehensive framework for integrating security into the software development life cycle (SDLC) using a security-by-design methodology. The proposed framework aims to systematically manage product development to enhance security, drawing on evidence-based approaches such as Common Criteria, ISMS, and PIMS, which provide detailed security activities. The document also summarizes historical contexts and previous works on secure SDLC while introducing a CIA-level driven framework that consolidates various secure SDLC practices.
Assurance-Level Driven Method for Integrating Security into SDLC Process
- 1. 1/37 Assurance-Level Driven Method for Integrating Security into SDLC Process Sooyoung Kang, Seungyeon Jeong, Seungjoo Kim skim71@korea.ac.kr *Corresponding Author CIST (Center for Information Security Technologies), School of Cybersecurity, Korea University bbang814@gmail.com CIST (Center for Information Security Technologies), School of Cybersecurity, Korea University sodon513@gmail.com Department of Automotive Convergence, Korea University
- 2. 2/37 1. Motivation 2. Related works 3. Security-by-Design Methodology 4. Evidence-based Approach 5. CIA-Level Driven Secure SDLC Framework 6. Case Study 7. Conclusion
- 4. 4/37 1. Motivation ▪ History 1970s 2022 1980s 2015 2002 • The US government recognized that it is not possible to improve the security of products by penetrate & patch approach. • The US government recognized that the product development process itself must be systematically and strictly managed(a.k.a. security-by-design) in order to improve the security of products. ※ Security-by-design: to reduce the complexity of the product by considering security from the initial phase of development process to achieve trustworthiness of the product
- 5. 5/37 1. Motivation ▪ History ※ Secure SDLC(Secure Software/System Development Life Cycle): The development process containing the security-by-design philosophy ※ UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe) • In the industry, Microsoft and IBM have been interested in secure SDLC at first and spread it to the industry. • The Department of Defense(DoD) demands an evaluation and improvement of cybersecurity of weapons systems based on operational requirements such as the Risk Management Framework(RMF). • UNECE requires the application of secure SDLC on vehicles by enacting UNECE automotive cybersecurity regulation(UNECE regulation). 1970s 2022 1980s 2015 2002
- 6. 6/37 1. Motivation ▪ From the early 1970s, the U.S. government has begun to recognize that it was impossible to improve the security of products only by penetration testing. • They recognized that the development process itself should be systematically and strictly managed. ▪ From the 1980s, various standards related to the security by design development methodology and evaluation and procurement system has began to be published. ▪ In 2013, RMF was released aiming to manage the development and evaluation/procurement of computer systems of military. • According to the DoD Cyber Strategy announced in 2015, the scope of RMF has been expanded from computer systems to advanced weapons systems. ▪ In 2020, UNECE regulation is enacted, and from 2022 vehicles that do not comply with it cannot be exported to Europe. Therefore, we present a specific security-by-design methodology that security product development companies can use in the actual field by using the Common Criteria(CC) standard. Published standards or guidelines do not provide a detailed methodology of security-by-design, so it is very difficult to use them in the actual field.
- 8. 8/37 2. Related works ▪ Research papers • We analyzed 84 research papers that specified secure SDLC and analyzed 11 of them in-depth. ✓ Papers published from 2000 to 2020, and only papers published in 5 major digital library of (i) ACM, (ii) Elsevier, (iii) IEEE, (iv) Scopus, (v) Springer. ✓ Papers with ‘SDL’, ‘SDLC’, ‘SSDLC’, ‘secure development lifecycle’, ‘secure SDLC’ as a keyword and have the subject of integration(‘integrating’, ‘mapping’). ✓ Papers that have the subject of the entire process('Process’, 'Lifecycle’), some phases('Requirements Analysis') or some activities('Fuzz Test'). No. Year Phase Integration target 1 2002 Entire process SDLC + Security engineering 2 2007 Requirements analysis Common Criteria + requirement engineering 3 2007 Design SDLC + security design standard 4 2012 Entire process IT service lifecycle + ISMS 5 2013 Entire process Common Criteria + ISMS 6 2015 Requirements analysis/Design Security + Safety 7 2015 Entire process Process evaluation standard + security management guideline 8 2017 Requirements analysis/Design/ Implementation SDLC + Security 9 2017 Entire process Secure SDLC + SDLC of small-size organization 10 2018 Verification Secure SDLC + Vulnerability analysis 11 2020 Design Secure SDLC + Risk management
- 9. 9/37 2. Related works ▪ Research papers(Examples) • Setting Expectations for CC in the Software Development Lifecycle(ICCC, 2008) ✓ This research performed mapping between SDLC and CC but does not present specific SDLC activities. • Verification of IVI Over-The-Air using UML/OCL (ICCC, 2019) ✓ This research mentioned secure SDLC, but only covers the requirements analysis and design phases.
- 10. 10/37 2. Related works ▪ Patents • We analyzed 7 patents related to secure SDLC. ✓ Patents applied from 2010 to 2020. ✓ Patents with ‘SDL’, ‘SDLC’, ‘SSDLC’, ‘secure development lifecycle’, ‘secure SDLC’ as a keyword and have the subject of the entire process('Process’, 'Lifecycle’), some phases('Requirements Analysis') or some activities('Fuzz Test'). No. Year Phase Description 1 2012 Requirements analysis/Design Threat modeling method and tool 2 2012 Implementation Development automation solution 3 2013 Entire process Risk-based Secure SDLC 4 2018 Entire process SDLC of SIM 5 2018 Requirements analysis/Design Access control solution of security device 6 2019 Operation Solution for risk identification 7 2020 Entire process Solution for account and authority management It was confirmed that only some phases were covered (such as the requirements analysis or design phase) or the integrated security activities were not specific.
- 12. 12/37 3. Security-by-Design Methodology ▪ Well-known secure SDLC standards and guidelines are extended and utilized in various fields from 2004. Security system Advanced weapon systems Vehicle MS SDL RMF NIST SSDLC SAE J3061 Secure SDLC developed by Microsoft and applied directly to operating systems and database products Secure SDLC that combines security and risk management concepts as a prerequisite to comply with FISMA(Federal Information Security Management Act). Secure SDLC on Software and hardware developed by NIST Secure SDLC Guideline suggesting ways to ensure the security of automotive development CSA SDF Secure SDLC established by the Singapore government Industry-wide McGraw Touchpoints SAFECode OWASP CLASP Secure SDLC containing only the 7 most important items to minimize the burden of the development process Secure SDLC presented based on best practices of enterprises security development Secure SDLC to strengthen security in the early phases with 5 views and 24 activities OWASP SAMM Security development maturity model developed by OWASP CIGITAL BSIMM Security development maturity model performed by CIGITAL
- 13. 13/37 3. Security-by-Design Methodology ▪ Well-known secure SDLC standards and guidelines are extended and utilized in various fields from 2004. MS SDL (2004~) OWASP CLASP (2006~2016) SAFECode (2008~) McGraw Touchpoints (2004~2006) NIST RMF (2013~) NIST SSDLC (2008~2019) SAE J3061 (2016~) Touchpoints – CLASP – SAMM – BSIMM (2004 ~ current) MS SDL (2004 ~ current) NIST SSDLC (2008 ~ current) SAFECode (2008 ~ current) BSIMM (2009~) OWASP SAMM (2009~2017) RMF (2013 ~ current) SAE J3061 (2016 ~ current) CSA SDF (2017~) CSA SDF (2017 ~ current)
- 15. 15/37 4. Evidence-based Approach ▪ Advantages of evidence-based approach • Since secure SDLC standards and guidelines only present an abstract list of security activities, it is difficult for development companies to use them in the actual field. • Evidence-based approaches such as CC, ISMS, and PIMS define detailed security activities. • Especially, CC is suitable for specifying secure SDLC as the requirements for outputs are specified in detail. ▪ Representative evidence-based approaches • CC(Common Criteria) - ISO/IEC 15408 ✓ Criteria for evaluating the security and reliability of IT systems • ISMS(Information Security Management System) - ISO/IEC 27001 ✓ Criteria for evaluating an information protection management system of the enterprise to ensure confidentiality, availability, and integrity • PIMS(Privacy Information Management System) - ISO/IEC 27701 ✓ Criteria for evaluating the personal information protection management system to protect personal information held by companies
- 16. 16/37 4. Evidence-based Approach ▪ CC(Common Criteria) - ISO/IEC 15408 • We utilized a total of 63 assurance requirements components in CC Part 3 and CEM. Category Num ISO/IEC 15408 - CC 1. Security Target(ASE) ASE_CCL, ASE_ECD, ASE_INT, ASE_OBJ, ASE_REQ, ASE_SPD, ASE_TSS 10 2. Development (ADV) ADV_ARC, ADV_FSP, ADV_IMP, ADV_INT, ADV_SPM, ADV_TDS 19 3. Guidance(AGD) AGD_PRE, AGD_OPE 2 4. Life cycle support(ALC) ALC_CMC, ALC_CMS, ALC_DEL, ALC_DVS, ALC_FLR, ALC_LCD, ALC_TAT 18 5. Test(ATE) ATE_COV, ATE_DPT, ATE_FUN, ATE_IND 9 6. Vulnerability assessment(AVA) AVA_VAN 5 Total 63 assurance requirements components
- 17. 17/37 4. Evidence-based Approach ▪ ISMS(Information Security Management System) - ISO/IEC 27001 • We utilized a total of 104 detailed evaluation items of ISMS. Category Num ISO 27001 - ISMS 1. Security policy 6 2. Organization of information security 4 3. Outsider security 3 4. Information Asset Classification 3 5. Security training 4 6. Human resource security 5 7. Physical security 9 8. System development security 10 9. Encryption control 2 10. Access control 14 11. Operation security 22 12. Information security incident management 7 13. IT incident recovery 3 14. Information security management 12 Total 104 detailed check items
- 18. 18/37 4. Evidence-based Approach ▪ PIMS(Personal Information Management System) - ISO/IEC 27701 • We utilized a total of 54 detailed evaluation items of PIMS. Category Num ISO/IEC 27701 - PIMS 1. PIMS of the target organization 8 2. PIMS of the target system 6 3. Step-by-step protection method of the privacy 12 4. Technical protection method of the target system 19 5. Privacy protection when using specific IT technology 9 Total 54 detailed assessment items Detailed security activities were derived by combining a total of 221 detailed assessment items from CC, ISMS, and PIMS.
- 19. 19/37 5. CIA-Level Driven Secure SDLC Framework
- 20. 20/37 5. CIA-Level Driven Secure SDLC Framework ▪ Security-by-Design • To reduce the complexity of a product by considering security from the early phases of development(such as requirements analysis or design) and consequently to achieve the product's trustworthiness. • The trustworthiness is to achieve all aspects of the correctness, safety, and security of the product's functions. ▪ CIA • Trustworthiness which is the goal of security-by-design can be named after CIA. Functional Correctness Safety Integrity Security Assurance+ + CIA-Level Driven Secure SDLC Framework
- 21. 21/37 5. CIA-Level Driven Secure SDLC Framework ▪ CIA-Level Driven Secure SDLC Framework(CIA-Level Framework) • Security-by-design methodology integrating secure SDLCs and evidence-based approaches • It combines 10 types of secure SDLCs and 3 types of evidence-based approaches. • It specialized the secure SDLC to derive related processes, security activities, detailed security activities, and evidence templates. ※ Evidence-based Standards: A standard that provides a concrete way of performing a process by presenting detailed requirements(such as evidences, detailed activities, etc.) for each activities of the development process ※ CC(Common Criteria, ISO 15408) ※ PIMS(Privacy Impact Management System, ISO 27701) ※ ISMS(Information Security Management System, ISO 27001) ※ FSMS(Functional Safety Management System, ISO 26262) • Microsoft SDL • NIST SSDLC • CSA SDF • SAFECode • MgGraw Touchpoints • OWASP CLASP • Cigital BSIMM • OWASP SAMM • NIST RMF • SAE J3061 Secure SDLC • CC • PIMS Evidence-based security approach • ISMS • FSMS Customized Secure SDLC Process, Activities, Evidence Templates CIA-Level Driven Secure SDLC Framework
- 22. 22/37 5. CIA-Level Driven Secure SDLC Framework ▪ CIA-Level Framework • It quantitatively analyzes the difference in the level of secure SDLC process between enterprises and their competitors. • It can be useful when the enterprise wants to build secure SDLC in the actual field by easily deriving requirements(security activities, detailed security activities, and evidence templates) to build secure SDLC at the desired level. 3. CIA-Level Extractor 4. Customized Secure SDLC Constructor 1. Activity-Evidence Mapper Standards, Laws, Rules, and Regulations Customized Secure SDLC Process, Activities, Detailed Activities, Evidence Templates • Standards, Laws, Rules, and Regulations: Common Criteria, ISMS, PIMS etc • Activity-Evidence Mapper: Mapping Secure SDLC activities and evidences by CIA-Level Target Market
- 23. 23/37 5. CIA-Level Driven Secure SDLC Framework ▪ Module that maps secure SDLCs and evidence-based approaches • It maps 10 types of secure SDLC standards and guidelines that are widely used in each field. ✓ It compares and analyzes those secure SDLCs and generalizes them into 10 phases. ✓ It derives 66 security activities by summing up all the security activities that need to be performed in each phase and removing redundant security activities. Activity-Evidence Mapper Analyze and normalize all the activities of each phase of every standard Integrate them into one single Secure SDLC Map secure SDLC and the SAR components of CC to the normalized activities Define detailed activities and build a template for each normalized activity Supplement the unmapped activities with other standards Standards, Laws, Rules, and Regulations Integrated Secure SDLC Process with detailed activities and evidence templates CC, CEM ISMS, PIMS, etc. ※ SAR(Security Assurance Requirements), CEM(Common Evaluation Methodology)
- 24. 24/37 5. CIA-Level Driven Secure SDLC Framework ▪ Integrated Secure SDLC - Security activities • CIA-Level Framework consists of a total of 66 activities for 10 phases and 28 evidence templates. 1. Security Training 2. Initiation 3. Requirements analysis 4. Acquisition 5. Design 6. Implement- ation 7. Verification 8. Production& Release 9. Operation 10. Disposal 1.1 Basic security training 3 9 9 3 12 3 8 7 7 5 1.2 Advanced security training 1.3 Plan training schedules 2.1 Project categorization 2.2 Role identification 2.3 Project tools selection 2.4 Security requirements source identification 2.5 Minimum quality level definition 2.6 Prepare compensation system for handling security issues 2.7 Plan project schedule 2.8 Security goals setting by field 2.9 Verifying consistency & completeness of goals 3.1 Estimating scope of project security analysis 3.2 Impact assessment for privacy 3.3 Impact assessment for business 3.4 Impact assessment for safety 3.5 Existing software assessment 3.6 Functional requirements elicitation 3.7 Security requirements elicitation 3.8 Conformity & conflict check on requirements by field 3.9 Verifying requirements based on security goals 4.1 Plan third-party components acquisition 4.2 Requirements definition for third- party components 4.3 Assessment & test for third-party components 10.1 Transfer & disposal procedure planning 10.2 Important information disposal 10.3 Media Erase 10.4 Hardware and software disposal 10.5 System shutdown 9.1 Monitoring planning 9.2 Continuous monitoring 9.3 Vulnerability report 9.4 Vulnerabilities assessment 9.5 Solution establishment 9.4 Vulnerability disclosure & patch/update 9.5 Configuration management after release 8.1 Final security review 8.2 Final privacy review 8.3 Requirements elicitation for production 8.4 Production procedure determination 8.5 Verification of production 8.4 Accident response planning 8.5 Security review for deployment procedure 7.1 Final security review 7.2 Final privacy review 7.3 Requirements elicitation for production 7.4 Production procedure determination 7.5 Verification of production 7.6 Accident response planning 7.7 Security review for deployment procedure 7.8 Security review for deployment procedure 5.1 Functions & design specification 5.2 Compliance with design best practices and principles 5.3 Structural design for the integration process 5.4 Asset identification 5.5 Create data flow diagram 5.6 Threat elicitation 5.7 Attack Library Collection 5.8 Risk analysis by field 5.9 Mitigation elicitation by field 5.10 Privacy analysis 5.11 Use case and misuse case identification 5.12 Verifying design based on requirements 6.1 Compliance with secure coding guidelines 6.2 Creation for deployment guide document and tools 6.3 Implementation verification according to design
- 25. 25/37 5. CIA-Level Driven Secure SDLC Framework ▪ Integrated Secure SDLC - Evidence templates • CIA-Level Framework consists of a total of 66 activities for 10 phases and 28 evidence templates. Phase Evidence Num. Phase Evidence Num. 1 Security Training • Security training plan • Training attendee list 2 6 Impleme- ntation • Source code • Unit test plan and test scenario • Unit test results 3 2 Initiation • Current process analysis • Current system analysis • Project plan • Software Requirements Specification 4 7 Verification • Integrated/system/acquisition test plan and test scenario • Integrated/system/acquisition test results • Vulnerability analysis 3 3 Require- ments Analysis • Impact assessment • Interface definition 2 8 Production & Release • Rehearsal plan and rehearsal result • Release request • Emergency incident response plan • Emergency accident response result 4 4 Acquisition • Acquisition confirmation document 1 9 Operation • Preparation result • Operator instructions • User guide • Vulnerability Response Plan • Vulnerability patch result 5 5 Design • Software design specification • Software architecture design and System architecture design specification • Integrated test plan and integrated test scenario 3 10 Disposal • System execution plan and system execution result 1
- 26. 26/37 5. CIA-Level Driven Secure SDLC Framework ▪ Integrated Secure SDLC - Security activities and evidence templates • CIA-Level Framework consists of a total of 66 activities for 10 phases and 28 evidence templates. Phase 1. Security Training 2. Initiation 3. Requirements Analysis 4. Acquisition 5. Design 6. Implementation 7. Verification 8. Release 9. Operation 10. Disposal Description Basic and advanced training on Security/privacy(3) Project categorization and security planning(9) Security/privacy impact assessment and security requirements elicitation(9) Acquisition plans establishment and verification of third-party components(3) Threat modeling and security architecture design/verification (12) System implementation and static analysis(3) Static/Dynamic analysis and penetration test(8) Final security/privacy review and deployment(7) Continuous monitoring and security patch(7) Hardware and software disposal(5) Evidence template Security training plan/Training attendee list(2) Project plan(4) Security requirements(2) Acquisition confirmation document(1) Security architecture(3) Source code(3) Test results/Vulnerability analysis(3) Final security review(4) Vulnerability patch results(5) System execution results(1)
- 27. 27/37 5. CIA-Level Driven Secure SDLC Framework ▪ Database that stores the mapping results and related details of Activity- Evidence Mapper • Database consists of a 4-table scheme. ✓ Table of 10 generalized secure SDLC phases ✓ Table of 66 security activities that must be performed at each phase ✓ Table of detailed security activity lists and descriptions ✓ Table of document templates that need to be produced Database Database scheme Integrated Secure SDLC Phase Activities Detailed Activities Evidence Document Templates CC (SAR & CEM) ISMS PIMS AAA BBB CCC DDD
- 28. 28/37 5. CIA-Level Driven Secure SDLC Framework ▪ CIA-Level Extractor: Module that extracts the CIA-Level of a company's secure SDLC • It quantitatively analyzes the security activities of the secure SDLC and calculates CIA-Level. ✓ CIA-Level: Indicator of trustworthiness that composed of Level 1 to Level 7 ✓ It means that the secure SDLC is systematically and strictly managed as the level increases. ▪ GAP Analyzer: Module that analyzes the gap of secure SDLC level between the company and its competitors Integrated Secure SDLC Phase Activities Detailed Activities Evidence Document Templates CC (SAR & CEM) ISMS PIMS AAA BBB CCC DDD CIA-Level Extractor & GAP Analyzer Predict competitor’s secure SDLC process, Activities, Detailed Activities etc. Analyze the differences of each activity between the company and competitors Gap Analysis Report Average CIA-level of Competitor’s Flagship Products Company’s secure SDLC Process, Activities, Detailed Activities, Evidences, Tools, etc.
- 29. 29/37 5. CIA-Level Driven Secure SDLC Framework ▪ Module that provides detailed information on the level desired by the company • It provides secure SDLC process, security activities, detailed security activities, and evidence templates. ✓ It quantitative analyze on only relevant security activities out of a total of 66 security activities, considering the business sector and characteristics. ✓ It ensures traceability of the entire Secure SDLC by easily deriving documents that need to be produced. Customized Secure SDLC Constructor Select the phases according to the characteristics of the products of the company Choose the detailed activities and the evidence templates according to CIA level Customized Secure SDLC Process, Activities, Detailed Activities Evidence Templates CIA-Level Database
- 31. 31/37 6. Case Study ▪ To prove the effectiveness of the CIA-Level Framework, we applied it to a representative software development company(A) in Korea. ▪ We selected competitors of company A and performed the following process. • After selecting the competitor as Microsoft, we selected CIA-Level 4 based on the CC certification cases. 1. Identify the characteristics of the enterprise 2. Select competitors based on the result of #1 3. Deviate average CIA-level of competitors 4. Select phase and security activities associated with the enterprise 5. Deviate CIA-level for each enterprise security activity 6. Analyze secure SDLC level gap between competitor and enterprise 7. Elicit gap analysis report and result graph 8. Share analysis results to security managers 8. Select CIA-level that enterprise wants 10. Provide suitable secure SDLC process, security activities, detailed security activities, artifacts, etc Product name EAL Year DB Microsoft SQL Server 2014 EAL2+ 2015 Microsoft SQL Server 2014 EAL4+ 2015 Microsoft SQL Server 2016 EAL4+ 2017 Microsoft SQL Server 2016 Database Engine Enterprise Edition EAL2+ 2017 Microsoft SQL Server 2017 EAL4+ 2020 OS Microsoft Windows 10 EAL1 2016 Windows 10 Anniversary Update and Microsoft Windows Server 2016 EAL1 2017 Microsoft Windows 10 EAL1 2018 Windows 10 and Windows Server EAL1 2018 Windows 10 and Windows Server EAL1 2019 Windows 10 and Windows Server 2019 version 1809 EAL1 2019 Windows 10 and Server version 1903 EAL1 2019
- 32. 32/37 6. Case Study ▪ We selected 8 of the 10 phases: security training, initiation, requirements analysis, design, implementation, verification, release, and operation. • Out of 66 security activities, 58 were selected, and company A determined that only 6 out of 58 security activities had the same level as Microsoft. ▪ We suggested a secure SDLC suitable for company A by applying CIA- Level Framework. • Afterward, the effectiveness of the framework has been proved as company A applied the improved process to the actual environment. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Level Activity Company A Microsoft Security Training Initiation Requirements Analysis Design Implemen -tation Verification Release Operation
- 34. 34/37 7. Conclusion ▪ Since the 1980s, the US government has recognized that the development process must be systematically and strictly managed to improve security. ▪ Afterward, Secure SDLC which applies the security-by-design philosophy has begun to be used. • However, it is difficult to use them in the actual field since they are too general. ▪ In this study, we proposed a CIA-Level Framework that derives detailed secure SDLC by integrating existing secure SDLCs and evidence-based approaches. ▪ By applying CIA-Level Framework to a representative software development company, the effectiveness of CIA-Level Framework was verified.
- 35. 35/37 Reference 1. Abdo, H., et al. "A safety/security risk analysis approach of Industrial Control Systems: A cyber bowtie–combining new version of attack tree with bowtie analysis." Computers & Security 72 (2018): 175-195. 2. Apvrille, Ludovic, and Letitia W. Li. "Harmonizing safety, security and performance requirements in embedded systems." 2019 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE). IEEE, 2019. 3. Asplund, Fredrik, et al. "Rapid Integration of CPS Security and Safety." IEEE Embedded Systems Letters 11.4 (2018): 111-114. 4. Bhalla, Nishchal, et al. "Security risk identification in a secure software lifecycle." U.S. Patent Application No.15784072. 2019 5. Bramberger, Robert, et al. "Co-engineering of Safety and Security Life Cycles for Engineering of Automotive Systems." ACM SIGAda Ada Letters 39.2 (2020): 41-48. 6. Brunner, Michael, et al. "Towards an integrated model for safety and security requirements of cyber-physical systems." 2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security Companion (QRS-C). IEEE, 2017. 7. Casola, Valentina, et al. "A novel Security-by-Design methodology: Modeling and assessing security by SLAs with a quantitative approach." Journal of Systems and Software 163 (2020): 110537. 8. Chen, Earl, et al. "Designing security into software during the development lifecycle." U.S. Patent Application No. 13619581. 2013. 9. Chowdhury, Thomas, et al. "Safe and secure automotive over-the-air updates." International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. Springer, Cham, 2018. 10. Cigital, "Building Security in Maturity Model 1.0." 11. CSA, “Security by Design Framework version 1.0”. 2017 12. Dobaj, Jürgen, et al. "Towards Integrated Quantitative Security and Safety Risk Assessment." International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. Springer, Cham, 2019. 13. Fowler, Daniel S., et al. "A Method for Constructing Automotive Cybersecurity Tests, a CAN Fuzz Testing Example." 2019 IEEE 19th International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security Companion (QRS-C). IEEE, 2019. 14. Futcher, Lynn, and Rossouw von Solms. "SecSDM: a model for integrating security into the software development life cycle." IFIP World Conference on Information Security Education. Springer, New York, NY, 2007. 15. Geismann, Johannes, Christopher Gerking, and Eric Bodden. "Towards ensuring security by design in cyber-physical systems engineering processes." Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Software and System Process. 2018. 16. Huang, Kaixing, et al. "Assessing the physical impact of cyberattacks on industrial cyber-physical systems." IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 65.10 (2018): 8153-8162. 17. ISO/IEC 15408, "Information technology - Security techniques - Evaluation criteria for IT security(CC)." 18. ISO/IEC 27001, "Information Security Management(ISMS)." 19. ISO/IEC 27701, "Security techniques - Extension to ISO/IEC 27001 and ISO/IEC 27002 for privacy information management (PIMS).“ 20. Koschuch, Manuel, et al. "Safety & Security in the Context of Autonomous Driving." 2019 IEEE International Conference on Connected Vehicles and Expo (ICCVE). IEEE, 2019. 21. Kriaa, Siwar, et al. "A survey of approaches combining safety and security for industrial control systems." Reliability engineering & system safety 139 (2015): 156-178. 22. Kriaa, Siwar, et al. "A survey of approaches combining safety and security for industrial control systems." Reliability engineering & system safety 139 (2015): 156-178. 23. Lee, Younghwa, Jintae Lee, and Zoonky Lee. "Integrating software lifecycle process standards with security engineering." Computers & Security 21.4 (2002): 345-355. 24. Lisova, Elena, Irfan Šljivo, and Aida Čaušević. "Safety and security co-analyses: A systematic literature review." IEEE Systems Journal 13.3 (2018): 2189-2200. 25. Mellado, Daniel, Eduardo Fernández –Medina, and Mario Piattini. " A common criteria based security requirements engineering process for the development of secure information systems." Computer standards & interfaces 29.2 (2007): 244-253. 26. Mesquida, Antoni Lluís, and Antonia Mas. "Implementing information security best practices on software lifecycle processes: The ISO/IEC 15504 Security Extension." Computers & Security 48 (2015): 19-34. 27. Michailidis, Alexander, et al. "Test front loading in early stages of automotive software development based on AUTOSAR." 2010 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE 2010). IEEE, 2010. 28. Microsoft, "Security Development Lifecycle - SDL Process Guidance Version 5.2", 2012
- 36. 36/37 Reference 29. Mir, Talhah Munawar, et al. "Threat analysis and modeling during a software development lifecycle of a software application." U.S. Patent No.8091065. 2012. 30. Mohammed, Nabil M., et al. "Exploring software security approaches in software development lifecycle: A systematic mapping study." Computer Standards & Interfaces 50 (2017): 107-115. 31. Morrison, Patrick, et al. "Mapping the field of software life cycle security metrics." Information and Software Technology 102 (2018): 146-159. 32. Nayerifard, Tahereh, Nasser Modiri, and Sam Jabbehdari. "An Approach for Software Security Evaluation Based on ISO/IEC 15408 in the ISMS Implementation." International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security 11.9 (2013): 7. 33. NIST, "NIST Special Publication 800-37 Revision 2 – Risk Management Framework for Information Systems and Organizations." 34. Oka, Dennis Kengo, Tommi Makila, and Rikke Kuipers. "Integrating Application Security Testing Tools into ALM Tools in the Automotive Industry." 2019 IEEE 19th International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security Companion (QRS-C). IEEE, 2019. 35. OWASP, "Comprehensive, Lightweight Application Security Process." 36. OWASP, "Software Assurance Maturity Model 2.0 – A guide to building." 37. Pricop, Emil, Sanda Florentina Mihalache, and Jaouhar Fattahi. "Innovative fuzzy approach on analyzing industrial control systems security." Recent Advances in Systems Safety and Security. Springer, Cham, 2016. 223-239. 38. Sabaliauskaite, Giedre, Sridhar Adepu, and Aditya Mathur. "A six-step model for safety and security analysis of cyber-physical systems." International Conference on Critical Information Infrastructures Security. Springer, Cham, 2016. 39. SAE, "Cybersecurity Guidebook for Cyber-Physical Vehicle Systems” 40. SAFECode, “Fundamental Practices for Secure Software Development 2nd Edition” 41. Sánchez-Gordón, Mary-Luz, et al. "Towards the Integration of Security Practices in the Software Implementation Process of ISO/IEC 29110: A Mapping." European Conference on Software Process Improvement. Springer, Cham, 2017. 42. Schilder, Marius, et al. "Secure device state apparatus and method and lifecycle management." U.S. Patent No.10223531. 2018. 43. Schmittner, Christoph, Zhendong Ma, and Erwin Schoitsch. "Combined safety and security development lifecylce." 2015 IEEE 13th International Conference on Industrial Informatics (INDIN). IEEE, 2015. 44. Sheikhpour, Razieh, and Nasser Modiri. "A best practice approach for integration of ITIL and ISO/IEC 27001 services for information security management." Indian journal of science and technology 5.2 (2012): 2170-2176. 45. Silke Holtmanns and Rune Lindholm, "Enhanced lifecycle management of security module", Patent Application No.CN103988530A. 2018. 46. Skoglund, Martin, Fredrik Warg, and Behrooz Sangchoolie. "In Search of Synergies in a Multi-concern Development Lifecycle: Safety and Cybersecurity." International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. Springer, Cham, 2018. 47. Takahira, Ricardo Y., et al. "Scrum and Embedded Software development for the automotive industry." Proceedings of PICMET'14 Conference: Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology; Infrastructure and Service Integration. IEEE, 2014. 48. Tiirik, Karl. "Comparison of SDL and Touchpoints." Last retrieved 11 (2004): 16-18. 49. United States Congress, "NIST SP 800-64 Revision 2 – Security Considerations in the System Development Life Cycle", 2019 50. Verma, Siddhartha, et al. "Combined Approach for Safety and Security." International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. Springer, Cham, 2019. 51. Vincent, Benjamin, and Ariel Gordon. "Security configuration lifecycle account protection for minors." U.S. Patent Application No.16022554. 2020 52. Wilcock, Lawrence, et al. "Automated lifecycle management of a computer implemented service." U.S. Patent No.8312419. 2012. 53. Wolff, Carsten, et al. "AMALTHEA—Tailoring tools to projects in automotive software development." 2015 IEEE 8th International Conference on Intelligent Data Acquisition and Advanced Computing Systems: Technology and Applications (IDAACS). Vol. 2. IEEE, 2015. 54. Yi, Shengwei, et al. "A safety-security assessment approach for communication-based train control (cbtc) systems based on the extended fault tree." 2018 27th International Conference on Computer Communication and Networks (ICCCN). IEEE, 2018. 55. Young, William, and Nancy G. Leveson. "An integrated approach to safety and security based on systems theory." Communications of the ACM 57.2 (2014): 31-35. 56. Zhang, Yanan, et al. "Test and Evaluation System for Automotive Cybersecurity." 2018 IEEE International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering (CSE). IEEE, 2018.
- 37. 37/37 Assurance-Level Driven Method for Integrating Security into SDLC Process Sooyoung Kang, Seungyeon Jeong, Seungjoo Kim skim71@korea.ac.kr *Corresponding Author CIST (Center for Information Security Technologies), School of Cybersecurity, Korea University bbang814@gmail.com CIST (Center for Information Security Technologies), School of Cybersecurity, Korea University sodon513@gmail.com Department of Automotive Convergence, Korea University This research was supported by the MSIT(Ministry of Science and ICT), Korea, under the ITRC(Information Technology Research Center) support program(IITP- 2020-2015-0-00403)supervised by the IITP(Institute for Information &communications Technology Planning &Evaluation)