COCOMO II Security Extension Workshop Report Report on 7th Workshop on Costing Secure Systems, USC CSE Annual Research Review 11/7/2018 COCOMO II Security Extension Workshop Report Edward Colbert Danni Wu {ecolbert, danwu}@cse.usc.edu 20th Annual COCOMO II & Software Costing Forum 2005 USC Center for Software Engineering © 2002-5 USC-CSE 7 November 2018 © 2002-5 USC-CSE

Outline Workshop Agenda Feedback From Attendees Future Work Report on 7th Workshop on Costing Secure Systems, USC CSE Annual Research Review 11/7/2018 Outline Workshop Agenda Feedback From Attendees Future Work MetaH provides semantics & supporting tools UML provides graphic front-end © 2002-5 USC-CSE 7 November 2018 © 2002-5 USC-CSE

Workshop Agenda 8:30am – 12:00am 1:00pm – 5:00pm Reviewed prototypes COSECMO prototype System development cost prototype 1:00pm – 5:00pm General discussions Model calibration Needed improvements to incorporate next version of Common Criteria SECU driver’s effect on effort © 2002-5 USC-CSE 7 November 2018

Outline Workshop Agenda Feedback From Attendees Future Work Report on 7th Workshop on Costing Secure Systems, USC CSE Annual Research Review 11/7/2018 Outline Workshop Agenda Feedback From Attendees Future Work MetaH provides semantics & supporting tools UML provides graphic front-end © 2002-5 USC-CSE 7 November 2018 © 2002-5 USC-CSE

Feedback on COSECMO Prototype Size should be based on higher-level Security Functional Requirements (SFR) Current: Size estimated by choosing SFR’s & their levels E.g., (FAU, low) Suggestions: Estimate size by choosing levels of developers’ concern about different security areas E.g., (Audit, low) Benefits: Not strict to Common Criteria terms, better understandable © 2002-5 USC-CSE 7 November 2018

Feedback on COSECMO Prototype (Cont.) User customization Current: Size for SFR is hard-coded E.g., 0.5K for (FAU, low) Suggestions: Let user customize suggested size One default value is provided Users can revise it based on their own experiences Benefits: Local calibration & greater flexibility © 2002-5 USC-CSE 7 November 2018

Feedback on COSECMO Prototype (Cont.) Show default set of COCOMO cost driver ratings Current: User manually choose levels for each COCOMO cost driver Prototype warns if user selected other driver value that aren’t consistent with COSECMO recommendations for selected SECU driver rating Suggestions: Shown default ratings after user choosing SECU driver rating Benefits: Easier to use © 2002-5 USC-CSE 7 November 2018

Feedback on SECU Driver Effect Change SECU driver effect on effort Current: SECU is multiplier Linear effect on size Suggestion: SECU should be scale factor Benefit: effort vs. size of trusted software plot matches security expert’s expectations EAL 5 EAL 7 50KSLOC a 10a 50KSLOC 100KSLOC EAL 6 b >>2b © 2002-5 USC-CSE 7 November 2018

Feedback on COSECMO Model Calibration Getting project data points from secure systems will be difficult Instead of security assurance requirements, consider general assurance requirements Safely critical assurance Map Evaluation Assurance Levels (EAL) & Safety Integrity Levels (SIL) to COCOMO driver levels Reliability assurance e.g. weapon accuracy Use safety project data & any security data to calibrate model © 2002-5 USC-CSE 7 November 2018

Outline Workshop Agenda Feedback From Attendees Future Work Report on 7th Workshop on Costing Secure Systems, USC CSE Annual Research Review 11/7/2018 Outline Workshop Agenda Feedback From Attendees Future Work MetaH provides semantics & supporting tools UML provides graphic front-end © 2002-5 USC-CSE 7 November 2018 © 2002-5 USC-CSE

Future Work Get more feedback from security & safety communities Report on 7th Workshop on Costing Secure Systems, USC CSE Annual Research Review Dan Wu: Updating COSECMO prototype Expand COSECMO model to a more general model 11/7/2018 Future Work Get more feedback from security & safety communities Extend security assurance to general assurance Refine costing prototypes Refine models Refine Delphi Collect & analyze data Write Papers & Ph.D. Thesis (theses?) © 2002-5 USC-CSE 7 November 2018 © 2002-5 USC-CSE