Assessing Security Risk and Requirements for Systems of Systems

A System of Systems (SoS) is a term used to describe independent systems converging for a purpose that could only be carried out through this interdependent collaboration. Many examples of SoSs exist, but the term has become a source of confusion across domains. Moreover, there are few illustrative SoS examples demonstrating their initial classification and structure. While there are many approaches for engineering of systems, less exist for SoS engineering. More specifically, there is a research gap towards approaches addressing SoS security risk assessment for engineering and operational needs, with a need for tool-support to assist modelling and visualising security risk and requirements in an interconnected SoS. From this, security requirements can provide a systematic means to identify constraints and related risks of the SoS, mitigated by human-user and system requirements. This work investigates specific challenges and current approaches for SoS security and risk, and aims to identify the alignment of SoS factors and concepts suitable for eliciting, analysing, validating risks with use of a tool-support for assessing security risk in the SoS context

Assessing System of Systems Security Risk and Requirements with OASoSIS

When independent systems come together as a System of Systems (SoS) to achieve a new purpose, dealing with requirements conflicts across systems becomes a challenge. Moreover, assessing and modelling security risk for independent systems and the SoS as a whole is challenged by a gap in related research and approaches within the SoSs domain. In this paper, we present an approach for bridging SoS and Requirements Engineering by identifying aligning SoSs concepts to assess and model security risk and requirements. We introduce our OASoSIS approach modifying OCTAVE Allegro for SoSs using CAIRIS (Computer Aided Integration of Requirements and Information Security) with a medical evacuation (MEDEVAC) SoS exemplar for Security Requirements Engineering tool-support. Index Terms—System of Systems, Security, Risk, Human Factors, Requirements Engineering, CAIRIS

Serious Asthma Events with Fluticasone plus Salmeterol versus Fluticasone Alone

BACKGROUND: The safe and appropriate use of long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) for the treatment of asthma has been widely debated. In two large clinical trials, investigators found a potential risk of serious asthma-related events associated with LABAs. This study was designed to evaluate the risk of administering the LABA salmeterol in combination with an inhaled glucocorticoid, fluticasone propionate. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial, adolescent and adult patients (age, ≥12 years) with persistent asthma were assigned to receive either fluticasone with salmeterol or fluticasone alone for 26 weeks. All the patients had a history of a severe asthma exacerbation in the year before randomization but not during the previous month. Patients were excluded from the trial if they had a history of life-threatening or unstable asthma. The primary safety end point was the first serious asthma-related event (death, endotracheal intubation, or hospitalization). Noninferiority of fluticasone-salmeterol to fluticasone alone was defined as an upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the risk of the primary safety end point of less than 2.0. The efficacy end point was the first severe asthma exacerbation. RESULTS: Of 11,679 patients who were enrolled, 67 had 74 serious asthma-related events, with 36 events in 34 patients in the fluticasone-salmeterol group and 38 events in 33 patients in the fluticasone-only group. The hazard ratio for a serious asthma-related event in the fluticasone-salmeterol group was 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 1.66), and noninferiority was achieved (P=0.003). There were no asthma-related deaths; 2 patients in the fluticasone-only group underwent asthma-related intubation. The risk of a severe asthma exacerbation was 21% lower in the fluticasone-salmeterol group than in the fluticasone-only group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.89), with at least one severe asthma exacerbation occurring in 480 of 5834 patients (8%) in the fluticasone-salmeterol group, as compared with 597 of 5845 patients (10%) in the fluticasone-only group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received salmeterol in a fixed-dose combination with fluticasone did not have a significantly higher risk of serious asthma-related events than did those who received fluticasone alone. Patients receiving fluticasone-salmeterol had fewer severe asthma exacerbations than did those in the fluticasone-only group