1. 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,
20th Annual COCOMO II & Software Costing Forum 2005
USC Center for Software Engineering
© USC-CSE
7 November 2018
© USC-CSE

2. 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
© USC-CSE
7 November 2018
© USC-CSE

3. 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
© USC-CSE
7 November 2018

4. 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
© USC-CSE
7 November 2018
© USC-CSE

5. 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
© USC-CSE
7 November 2018

6. 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
© USC-CSE
7 November 2018

7. 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
© USC-CSE
7 November 2018

8. 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
© USC-CSE
7 November 2018

9. 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
© USC-CSE
7 November 2018

10. 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
© USC-CSE
7 November 2018
© USC-CSE

11. 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?)
© USC-CSE
7 November 2018
© USC-CSE