1. Science
  2. Видання
  3. Системи обробки інформації
  4. 4(159)'2019
  5. Verification of the security systems antagonistic agents behavior model

Verification of the security systems antagonistic agents behavior model

 O. Milov, L. Parkhuts, S. Milevskyi, S. Pohasii
Системи обробки інформації. — 2019. — № 4(159). С. 65-81.
UDK 681.32:007.5
Article language: english
Annotations languages:

Annotation: Model verification is a very important step in the methodology for modeling the security systems antagonistic agents behavior in general and system dynamics in particular. By verifying the behavior model of antagonistic agents we mean a process that includes both formal/quantitative tools and informal/qualitative ones. The article presents the process of creating a model of antagonistic agents behavior. The assumptions underlying the model and the limitations of the created model are preliminarily formed. The components of the model are distinguished: a defender submodel, an attacker submodel and a confrontation environment submodel. For each of the submodels, the processes and relationships in models are described, the variables used for modeling are defined. Processes and relations between variables are presented in the form of a system of linear and differential equations. Based on the given system of equations of the mathematical model, a system-dynamic model of the interaction of antagonistic agents is constructed. It is shown that for the practical use of the software implementation of the behavior model, the verification procedure is mandatory. The main groups of tests that need to be performed using the model are listed to confirm its adequacy to the conditions of use and the goals for which it was developed. The results of test-ing the system-dynamic behavior model for the main group of verification tests at each of the three main stages of model verification are presented: structural tests, structure-oriented behavior tests and behavior model tests. Based on the results obtained, the special importance of structurally oriented behavioral tests is emphasized. These are powerful behavioral tests that can provide information about potential structural weaknesses. These tests seem to be the most promising area for research on model verification.

Keywords: verification, behavior model, antagonistic agents, system-dynamic model, model adequacy.


1.Gordon L.A. Information security expenditures and real options: a wait-and-see approach / L.A. Gordon, M.P. Loeb,W. Lucyshyn // Computer Security Journal. – 2003a. – № 19(2). – Р. 1-7.
2.Gordon L.A. Sharing information on computer systems security: an economic analysis / L.A. Gordon, M.P. Loeb,W. Lucyshyn // J. Account. Public Policy. – 2003b. – № 22 (6). – Р. 461-485.
3.Anderson R. Why information security is hard - An economic perspective / R. Anderson // Proceedings – Annual Com-puter Security Applications Conference, ACSAC. – January 2001. – Р. 358-365.
4.Gartner. Magic Quadrant for Security Information and Event Management / Gartner // Gartner RAS Core Research. –2011.
5.Gartner. IT Key Metrics Data 2012: IT Enterprise Summary Report / Gartner // Gartner RAS Core Research. – 2012.
6.Suby M. The 2015 (ISC) Global Information Security Workforce Study [Electronic resource] / M. Suby, F. Dickson // AFrost & Sullivan White Paper. –2015.–P.1-28. –Availableat: https://www.isc2cares.org/uploadedFiles/wwwisc2caresorg/Content/GISWS/FrostSullivan-(ISC)?-Global-Information-Security-Workforce-Study-2015.pdf.
7.Whitman M.E. Enemy at the Gate: Threats to Information Security / M.E. Whitman // Communicationsofthe ACM. –2003. – № 46(8). – Р. 91-95. https://doi.org/10.1145/859670.859675.
8.Shameli-Sendi A. (2016). Taxonomy of information security risk assessment (ISRA) / A.Shameli-Sendi, R. Aghababaei-Barzegar, M. Cheriet // Computers & Security. – 2016. – № 57. – Р. 14-30.
9.Milov O. Development of the model of the antagonistic agents behavior under a cyber conflict / O. Milov, S. Yevseiev,Y. Ivanchenko, S. Milevskyi, O. Nesterov, O. Puchkov, A. Salii, O. Timochko, V. Tiurin, А. Yarovyi // Eastern-Europe Journal of Enterprise Technologies. – 2019. – Vol. 4. – № 9(100). – P. 6-19.
10.The impact of information sharing on cybersecurity underinvestment: A real options perspective / L.A. Gordon,M.P. Loeb, W. Lucyshyn, L. Zhou // Journal of Accounting and Public Policy. – 2015. – № 34(5). – Р. 509-519.
11.Kiely L. Systemic security management / L. Kiely, T.V. Benzel // IEEE security & privacy. – 2006. – № 4(6).
12.Tipton H. Information Security Management Handbook. Fifth Edition, Vol. 3 / H. Tipton, M. Krause. – Boston, MA,USA: Auerbach Publications, 2006.
13.Huang C.D. Economics of information security investment in the case of concurrent heterogeneous attacks with budgetconstraints / C.D. Huang, R.S. Behara // International Journal of Production Economics. – 2013.– № 141(1). – Р. 255-268.
14.Barlas Y. Output Behavior Validation in System Dynamics Simulation / Y. Barlas, A. Erdem // Proceedings of the Eu-ropean Simulation Symposium, Istanbul, Turkey, 1994. – Р. 81-84.
15.Sterman J. Business Dynamics. Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World / J. Sterman. – Boston: McGrawHill Higher Education, 2000.
16.Gordon L.A. The Economics of Information Security Investment / L.A. Gordon, M.P. Loeb // ACM Transactions on In-formation and System Security. – 2002. – № 5(4). – Р. 438-457.
17.Gordon L.A. Budgeting process for information security expenditures / L.A. Gordon, M.P. Loeb // Communications ofthe ACM. – 2006. – № 49(1). – Р. 121-125.
18.Pindyck R. Irreversibility, Uncertainty and Investment / R. Pindyck // Journal of Economic Literature. – 1991. – AA/A(September). – Р. 1110-1148.

Milov, O.V., Parkhuts, L.T., Milevskyi, S.V. and Pohasii, S.S. (2019), Verification of the security systems antagonistic agents behavior model, Information Processing Systems, Vol. 4(159), pp. 65-81. https://doi.org/10.30748/soi.2019.159.08.