[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Document Open Access Logo

Argument Patterns for Multi-Concern Assurance of Connected Automated Driving Systems

Authors Fredrik Warg , Martin Skoglund

PDF

File

Thumbnail PDF
PDF
OASIcs.CERTS.2019.3.pdf
  • Filesize: 2.06 MB
  • 13 pages

Document Identifiers

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Computer systems organization → Dependable and fault-tolerant systems and networks
  • Computer systems organization → Embedded and cyber-physical systems
Keywords
  • Multi-concern assurance
  • connected automated driving
  • dependability
  • functional safety
  • cybersecurity
  • cyber-physical systems
  • critical embedded systems

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

Abstract

Showing that dependable embedded systems fulfil vital quality attributes, e.g. by conforming to relevant standards, can be challenging. For emerging and increasingly complex functions, such as connected automated driving (CAD), there is also a need to ensure that attributes such as safety, cybersecurity, and availability are fulfilled simultaneously. Furthermore, such systems are often designed using existing parts, including 3rd party components, which must be included in the quality assurance. This paper discusses how to structure the argument at the core of an assurance case taking these considerations into account, and proposes patterns to aid in this task. The patterns are applied in a case study with an example automotive function. While the aim has primarily been safety and security assurance of CAD, their generic nature make the patterns relevant for multi-concern assurance in general.

Cite As Get BibTex

Fredrik Warg and Martin Skoglund. Argument Patterns for Multi-Concern Assurance of Connected Automated Driving Systems. In 4th International Workshop on Security and Dependability of Critical Embedded Real-Time Systems (CERTS 2019). Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs), Volume 73, pp. 3:1-3:13, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2019) https://doi.org/10.4230/OASIcs.CERTS.2019.3

Author Details

Fredrik Warg
  • RISE Research Institutes of Sweden, Borås, Sweden
Martin Skoglund
  • RISE Research Institutes of Sweden, Borås, Sweden

Funding

This work was supported by Vinnova - project ESPLANADE (2016-04268), and the EU and Vinnova - project ECSEL AMASS (692474), but the contents of the paper only reflect the authors' views.

References

  1. AMASS deliverable D4.3: Design of the AMASS tools and methods for multiconcern assurance, 2018. [Accessed 17-April-2019]. URL: https://www.amass-ecsel.eu/.
  2. AMASS deliverable D4.8: Methodological guide for multiconcern assurance(b), 2018. [Accessed 17-April-2019]. URL: https://www.amass-ecsel.eu/.
  3. John Birch, Roger Rivett, Ibrahim Habli, Ben Bradshaw, John Botham, Dave Higham, Peter Jesty, Helen Monkhouse, and Robert Palin. Safety cases and their role in ISO 26262 functional safety assessment. In 32nd International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security, SAFECOMP, pages 154-165. Springer, 2013. Google Scholar
  4. John Birch, Roger Rivett, Ibrahim Habli, Ben Bradshaw, John Botham, Dave Higham, Helen Monkhouse, and Robert Palin. A Layered Model for Structuring Automotive Safety Arguments (Short Paper). In 10th European Dependable Computing Conference, EDCC, pages 178-181. IEEE, 2014. Google Scholar
  5. Thomas Chowdhury, Chung-Wei Lin, BaekGyu Kim, Mark Lawford, Shinichi Shiraishi, and Alan Wassyng. Principles for systematic development of an assurance case template from ISO 26262. In 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops, ISSREW, pages 69-72. IEEE, 2017. Google Scholar
  6. Georgios Despotou and Tim Kelly. An Argument-Based Approach for Assessing Design Alternatives and Facilitating Trade-offs in Critical Systems. Journal of System Safety, 43(2):22, 2007. Google Scholar
  7. Ashlie B Hocking, John Knight, M Anthony Aiello, and Shinichi Shiraishi. Arguing software compliance with ISO 26262. In 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops, ISSREW, pages 226-231. IEEE, 2014. Google Scholar
  8. ISO. ISO 26262:2018 Road vehicles - Functional safety, 2018. Google Scholar
  9. ISO/IEC. ISO/IEC 15026-2:2011 Systems and software engineering - Systems and software assurance - Part 2: Assurance case, 2011. Google Scholar
  10. ISO/IEC. ISO/IEC 15026-2:2015 Systems and software engineering - Systems and software assurance - Part 3: System integrity levels, 2015. Google Scholar
  11. Nikita Johnson and Tim Kelly. An Assurance Framework for Independent Co-assurance of Safety and Security. In 36th International System Safety Conference, ISSC, 2018. Google Scholar
  12. Helmut Martin, Robert Bramberger, Christoph Schmittner, Zhendong Ma, Thomas Gruber, Alejandra Ruiz, and Georg Macher. Safety and security co-engineering and argumentation framework. In International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security, pages 286-297. Springer, 2017. Google Scholar
  13. Helmut Martin, Martin Krammer, Robert Bramberger, and Eric Armengaud. Process- and product-based lines of argument for automotive safety cases. In ACM/IEEE 7th International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems, ICCPS, 2016. Google Scholar
  14. OpecCert contributors. OpenCert. [Accessed 17-April-2019]. URL: https://www.polarsys.org/projects/polarsys.opencert.
  15. Rob Palin, David Ward, Ibrahim Habli, and Roger Rivett. ISO 26262 safety cases: Compliance and assurance. In 6th IET International Conference on System Safety. IET, 2011. Google Scholar
  16. Robert Palin and Ibrahim Habli. Assurance of Automotive Safety-A Safety Case Approach. In 29th International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security, SAFECOMP, pages 14-17. Springer, 2010. Google Scholar
  17. SAE. SAE J3016:201806 - SURFACE VEHICLE RECOMMENDED PRACTICE - Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles, 2018. Google Scholar
  18. SCSC Assurance Case Working Group Contributors. GSN Community Standard Version 2, 2018. [Accessed 17-April-2019]. URL: https://scsc.uk/r141B:1?t=1.
  19. Kenji Taguchi, Daisuke Souma, and Hideaki Nishihara. Safe &sec case patterns. In 33rd International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security, SAFECOMP, pages 27-37. Springer, 2014. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2025 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH About DROPS Imprint Privacy Contact