https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6228-8367
Figures & data
Figure 1. Compositions of the security assurance evaluation model.
Table 1. Exemplary assurance criteria in web applications.
Table 2. Exemplary assurance elements (security requirement elements).
Table 3. Exemplary assurance conditions (security requirement conditions).
Figure 2. Sample hierarchical structure of the security assurance evaluation.
Table 4. Symbols used in the assurance evaluation.
Table 5. Assurance level.
Figure 3. Overview of the ontology-based approach for generating security assurance metrics.
Figure 4. Classes of the security assurance ontology in Protégé.
Figure 5. Illustration of relationships between classes.
Table 6. Objective properties of the security assurance ontology.
Figure 6. Configurations of data properties in Protégé.
Table 7. Data properties and their annotations.
Figure 7. Encoding classes in RDF/XML.
Figure 8. Encoding data properties in RDF/XML.
Table 8. Excerpt of SWRL rules used within the ontology.
Figure 9. Implementation of the metrics calculation engine.
Figure 10. Configuration of individuals in Protégé.
Figure 11. SWRL Rules in Protégé and the corresponding inferences.
Figure 12. The SPARQL statement and the execution result of CQ 1.
Figure 13. The SPARQL statement and the execution result of CQ 2.
Figure 14. The SPARQL statement and the execution result of CQ 3.
Figure 15. Implementation architecture of the prototyped ontology-based application.
Figure 16. The Prototyped application using the ontology-based approach.
Figure 17. The user interface for security requirement metrics.
Figure 18. The user interface for vulnerability metrics.
Figure 19. The data property configurations for the case study.
Figure 20. The result of the case study (scenario).
![Supercharge Your Next Research Paper: Research and write your next paper with Jenni AI.]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/112442/MPU-social-sciences.png"})