Abstract
Analysing risk is critical for dealing with cybersecurity incidents. However, there is no explicit method for analysing risk during cybersecurity incidents, since existing methods focus on identifying the risks that a system might face throughout its life. This paper presents a method for analysing the risk of cybersecurity incidents based on an incident risk analysis model, a method for eliciting likelihoods based on the oddness of events and a method for categorising the potential ramifications of cybersecurity incidents.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Failure mode, effects and criticality analysis.
- 2.
In ISO terminology, risk description is named risk analysis whereas risk analysis is named risk assessment.
- 3.
More properly, the set of consequence nodes for which there exist an arc (directed edge as a graph) directed to the impact node \(i_j\).
References
Schneier, B.: Attack trees. Dr. Dobb’s J. 24(12), 21–29 (1999)
Singhal, A., Ximming, O.: Security Risk Analysis of Enterprise Networks Using Probabilistic Attack Graphs. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg (2011). https://doi.org/10.6028/nist.ir.7788
Department of Defense: MIL-STD-1629A, Procedures for Performing a Failure Mode, Effect and Criticality Analysis. Department of Defense, Washington DC, USA (1980)
Clemens, P.L., Simmons, R.J.: System Safety and Risk Management: A Guide for Engineering Educators. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati (1998)
International Association of Drilling Contractors: Health, Safety and Environment Case Guidelines for Mobile Offshore Drilling Units, Issue 3.6. International Association of Drilling Contractors, Houston, TX, USA (2015)
International Organisation for Standardization: ISO 17776:2000, Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries – Offshore Production Installations – Guidelines on Tools and Techniques for Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. International Organisation for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland (2000)
Cox, L.A.: What’s wrong with risk matrices? Risk Anal. 28(2), 497–512 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01030.x
Lund, M.S., Solhaug, B., Stølen, K.: Model-Driven Risk Analysis: The CORAS Approach. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12323-8
The Open Group: Risk Taxonomy. The Open Group, Reading, UK (2009)
Cherdantseva, Y., Burnap, P., Blyth, A., Eden, P., Jones, K., Soulsby, H., Stoddart, K.: A review of cyber security risk assessment methods for SCADA systems. Comput. Secur. 56, 1–27 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2015.09.009
Couce-Vieira, A., Insua, D.R., Houmb, S.H.: GIRA: a general model for incident risk analysis. J. Risk Res. (2017). Advance online publication https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2017.1372509
Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H.: Decisions with Multiple Objectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1993). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174084
European Food Safety Authority: Guidance on Uncertainty in EFSA Scientific Assessment. European Food Safety Authority, Parma, Italy (2016)
European Food Safety Authority: Guidance on Expert Knowledge Elicitation in Food and Feed Safety Risk Assessment. European Food Safety Authority, Parma, Italy (2014). https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3734
Renooij, S.: Probability elicitation for belief networks: issues to consider. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 16(3), 255–269 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1017/s0269888901000145
ISACA: COBIT 5: A Business Framework for the Governance and Management of Enterprise IT. ISACA, Rolling Meadows, IL, USA (2012)
Langner, R.: Stuxnet: dissecting a cyberwarfare weapon. IEEE Secur. Priv. 9(3), 49–51 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1109/msp.2011.67
National Institute of Standards and Technology. Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (2014)
Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team. Destructive Malware. National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (US) (2014)
Espinoza, N.: Incommensurability: the failure to compare risks. In: The Ethics of Technological Risk, pp. 128–143. Earthscan, London (UK) (2009)
Reichert, P., Langhans, S.D., Lienert, J., Schuwirth, N.: The conceptual foundation of environmental decision support. J. Environ. Manage. 154, 316–332 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.01.053
Gregory, R., Failing, L., Harstone, M., Long, G., McDaniels, T., Ohlson, D.: Structured Decision Making: A Practical Guide to Environmental Management Choices. Wiley, Hoboken (2012)
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the support of the MINECO MTM2014-56949-C3-1-R project, the AXA-ICMAT Chair in Adversarial Risk Analysis, the Regional Forskingsfond Vestlandet project 245291 Cybersecurity Incident Response Framework, and the COST IS1304 Action on Expert Judgement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Couce-Vieira, A., Houmb, S.H., Ríos-Insua, D. (2018). CSIRA: A Method for Analysing the Risk of Cybersecurity Incidents. In: Liu, P., Mauw, S., Stolen, K. (eds) Graphical Models for Security. GraMSec 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10744. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74860-3_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74860-3_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-74859-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-74860-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)