-
An Exploratory Study on the Engineering of Security Features
Authors:
Kevin Hermann,
Sven Peldszus,
Jan-Philipp Steghöfer,
Thorsten Berger
Abstract:
Software security is of utmost importance for most software systems. Developers must systematically select, plan, design, implement, and especially, maintain and evolve security features -- functionalities to mitigate attacks or protect personal data such as cryptography or access control -- to ensure the security of their software. Although security features are usually available in libraries, in…
▽ More
Software security is of utmost importance for most software systems. Developers must systematically select, plan, design, implement, and especially, maintain and evolve security features -- functionalities to mitigate attacks or protect personal data such as cryptography or access control -- to ensure the security of their software. Although security features are usually available in libraries, integrating security features requires writing and maintaining additional security-critical code. While there have been studies on the use of such libraries, surprisingly little is known about how developers engineer security features, how they select what security features to implement and which ones may require custom implementation, and the implications for maintenance. As a result, we currently rely on assumptions that are largely based on common sense or individual examples. However, to provide them with effective solutions, researchers need hard empirical data to understand what practitioners need and how they view security -- data that we currently lack. To fill this gap, we contribute an exploratory study with 26 knowledgeable industrial participants. We study how security features of software systems are selected and engineered in practice, what their code-level characteristics are, and what challenges practitioners face. Based on the empirical data gathered, we provide insights into engineering practices and validate four common assumptions.
△ Less
Submitted 12 February, 2025; v1 submitted 20 January, 2025;
originally announced January 2025.
-
A Taxonomy of Functional Security Features and How They Can Be Located
Authors:
Kevin Hermann,
Simon Schneider,
Catherine Tony,
Asli Yardim,
Sven Peldszus,
Thorsten Berger,
Riccardo Scandariato,
M. Angela Sasse,
Alena Naiakshina
Abstract:
Security must be considered in almost every software system. Unfortunately, selecting and implementing security features remains challenging due to the variety of security threats and possible countermeasures. While security standards are intended to help developers, they are usually too abstract and vague to help implement security features, or they merely help configure such. A resource that des…
▽ More
Security must be considered in almost every software system. Unfortunately, selecting and implementing security features remains challenging due to the variety of security threats and possible countermeasures. While security standards are intended to help developers, they are usually too abstract and vague to help implement security features, or they merely help configure such. A resource that describes security features at an abstraction level between high-level (i.e., rather too general) and low-level (i.e., rather too specific) security standards could facilitate secure systems development. To realize security features, developers typically use external security frameworks, to minimize implementation mistakes. Even then, developers still make mistakes, often resulting in security vulnerabilities. When security incidents occur or the system needs to be audited or maintained, it is essential to know the implemented security features and, more importantly, where they are located. This task, commonly referred to as feature location, is often tedious and error-prone. Therefore, we have to support long-term tracking of implemented security features.
We present a study of security features in the literature and their coverage in popular security frameworks. We contribute (1) a taxonomy of 68 functional implementation-level security features including a mapping to widely used security standards, (2) an examination of 21 popular security frameworks concerning which of these security features they provide, and (3) a discussion on the representation of security features in source code. Our taxonomy aims to aid developers in selecting appropriate security features and frameworks and relating them to security standards when they need to choose and implement security features for a software system.
△ Less
Submitted 8 January, 2025;
originally announced January 2025.
-
A Large-Scale Study of Model Integration in ML-Enabled Software Systems
Authors:
Yorick Sens,
Henriette Knopp,
Sven Peldszus,
Thorsten Berger
Abstract:
The rise of machine learning (ML) and its integration into software systems has drastically changed development practices. While software engineering traditionally focused on manually created code artifacts with dedicated processes and architectures, ML-enabled systems require additional data-science methods and tools to create ML artifacts -- especially ML models and training data. However, integ…
▽ More
The rise of machine learning (ML) and its integration into software systems has drastically changed development practices. While software engineering traditionally focused on manually created code artifacts with dedicated processes and architectures, ML-enabled systems require additional data-science methods and tools to create ML artifacts -- especially ML models and training data. However, integrating models into systems, and managing the many different artifacts involved, is far from trivial. ML-enabled systems can easily have multiple ML models that interact with each other and with traditional code in intricate ways. Unfortunately, while challenges and practices of building ML-enabled systems have been studied, little is known about the characteristics of real-world ML-enabled systems beyond isolated examples. Improving engineering processes and architectures for ML-enabled systems requires improving the empirical understanding of these systems. We present a large-scale study of 2,928 open-source ML-enabled software systems. We classified and analyzed them to determine system characteristics, model and code reuse practices, and architectural aspects of integrating ML models. Our findings show that these systems still mainly consist of traditional source code, and that ML model reuse through code duplication or pre-trained models is common. We also identified different ML integration patterns and related implementation practices. We hope that our results help improve practices for integrating ML models, bringing data science and software engineering closer together.
△ Less
Submitted 24 February, 2025; v1 submitted 12 August, 2024;
originally announced August 2024.
-
120 Domain-Specific Languages for Security
Authors:
Markus Krausz,
Sven Peldszus,
Francesco Regazzoni,
Thorsten Berger,
Tim Güneysu
Abstract:
Security engineering, from security requirements engineering to the implementation of cryptographic protocols, is often supported by domain-specific languages (DSLs). Unfortunately, a lack of knowledge about these DSLs, such as which security aspects are addressed and when, hinders their effective use and further research. This systematic literature review examines 120 security-oriented DSLs based…
▽ More
Security engineering, from security requirements engineering to the implementation of cryptographic protocols, is often supported by domain-specific languages (DSLs). Unfortunately, a lack of knowledge about these DSLs, such as which security aspects are addressed and when, hinders their effective use and further research. This systematic literature review examines 120 security-oriented DSLs based on six research questions concerning security aspects and goals, language-specific characteristics, integration into the software development lifecycle (SDLC), and effectiveness of the DSLs. We observe a high degree of fragmentation, which leads to opportunities for integration. We also need to improve the usability and evaluation of security DSLs.
△ Less
Submitted 13 August, 2024; v1 submitted 12 August, 2024;
originally announced August 2024.
-
Software Reconfiguration in Robotics
Authors:
Sven Peldszus,
Davide Brugali,
Daniel Strüber,
Patrizio Pelliccione,
Thorsten Berger
Abstract:
Robots often need to be reconfigurable$-$to customize, calibrate, or optimize robots operating in varying environments with different hardware). A particular challenge in robotics is the automated and dynamic reconfiguration to load and unload software components, as well as parameterizing them. Over the last decades, a large variety of software reconfiguration techniques has been presented in the…
▽ More
Robots often need to be reconfigurable$-$to customize, calibrate, or optimize robots operating in varying environments with different hardware). A particular challenge in robotics is the automated and dynamic reconfiguration to load and unload software components, as well as parameterizing them. Over the last decades, a large variety of software reconfiguration techniques has been presented in the literature, many specifically for robotics systems. Also many robotics frameworks support reconfiguration. Unfortunately, there is a lack of empirical data on the actual use of reconfiguration techniques in real robotics projects and on their realization in robotics frameworks. To advance reconfiguration techniques and support their adoption, we need to improve our empirical understanding of them in practice. We present a study of automated reconfiguration at runtime in the robotics domain. We determine the state-of-the art by reviewing 78 relevant publications on reconfiguration. We determine the state-of-practice by analyzing how four major robotics frameworks support reconfiguration, and how reconfiguration is realized in 48 robotics (sub-)systems. We contribute a detailed analysis of the design space of reconfiguration techniques. We identify trends and research gaps. Our results show a significant discrepancy between the state-of-the-art and the state-of-practice. While the scientific community focuses on complex structural reconfiguration, only parameter reconfiguration is widely used in practice. Our results support practitioners to realize reconfiguration in robotics systems, as well as they support researchers and tool builders to create more effective reconfiguration techniques that are adopted in practice.
△ Less
Submitted 9 April, 2025; v1 submitted 2 October, 2023;
originally announced October 2023.
-
Checking Security Compliance between Models and Code
Authors:
Katja Tuma,
Sven Peldszus,
Daniel Strüber,
Riccardo Scandariato,
Jan Jürjens
Abstract:
It is challenging to verify that the planned security mechanisms are actually implemented in the software. In the context of model-based development, the implemented security mechanisms must capture all intended security properties that were considered in the design models. Assuring this compliance manually is labor intensive and can be error-prone. This work introduces the first semi-automatic te…
▽ More
It is challenging to verify that the planned security mechanisms are actually implemented in the software. In the context of model-based development, the implemented security mechanisms must capture all intended security properties that were considered in the design models. Assuring this compliance manually is labor intensive and can be error-prone. This work introduces the first semi-automatic technique for secure data flow compliance checks between design models and code. We develop heuristic-based automated mappings between a design-level model (SecDFD, provided by humans) and a code-level representation (Program Model, automatically extracted from the implementation) in order to guide users in discovering compliance violations, and hence potential security flaws in the code. These mappings enable an automated, and project-specific static analysis of the implementation with respect to the desired security properties of the design model. We developed two types of security compliance checks and evaluated the entire approach on open source Java projects.
△ Less
Submitted 18 March, 2022; v1 submitted 19 August, 2021;
originally announced August 2021.
