MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Software Specification and Attack Languages

2007· book-chapter· en· W2504374816 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammed Hussein

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2007
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProgramming languageSoftware engineeringSoftware security assuranceSoftware developmentSoftware requirements specificationSpecification languageSoftware constructionSoftwareComputer securityInformation securitySecurity service

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

General-purpose software specification languages are introduced to model software by providing a better understanding of their characteristics. Nevertheless, these languages may fail to model some nonfunctional requirements such as security and safety. The necessity for simplifying the specification of nonfunctional requirements led to the development of domain-specific languages (e.g., attack description languages). Attack languages are employed to specify intrusion detection related aspects like intrusion signatures, normal behavior, alert correlation, and so forth. They provide language constructs and libraries that simplify the specification of the aforementioned intrusion detection aspects. Attack languages are used heavily due to the rapid growth of computer intrusions. The current trend in software development is to develop the core functionalities of the software based on the requirements expressed in general-purpose software specification languages. Then, attack languages and other security mechanisms are used to deal with security requirements. However, using two sets of languages may result in several disadvantages such as redundant and conflicting requirements (e.g., usability vs. security). Moreover, incorporating security at the latter stages of a software life cycle is more difficult and time consuming. Many research works propose the unification and reconciliation of software engineering and security engineering in various directions. These research efforts aim to enable developers to use the current software engineering tools and techniques to specify security requirements. In this chapter, we present a study on the classification of software specification languages and discuss the current state of the art regarding attack languages. Specification languages are categorized based on their features and their main purposes. A detailed comparison among attack languages is provided. We show the example extensions of the two software specification languages to include some features of the attack languages. We believe that extending certain types of software specification languages to express security aspects like attack descriptions is a major step towards unifying software and security engineering.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.680
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicSoftware Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207