nicolas.meric
/
Isabelle_DOF
forked from Isabelle_DOF/Isabelle_DOF
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity
Isabelle_DOF/examples/CENELEC_50128/mini_odo/document/root.bib

885 lines
38 KiB
BibTeX
Executable File
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters

This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

@STRING{pub-springer={Springer} }
@STRING{pub-springer:adr="" }
@STRING{s-lncs = "LNCS" }
@Manual{ wenzel:isabelle-isar:2017,
title = {The Isabelle/Isar Reference Manual},
author = {Makarius Wenzel},
year = 2017,
note = {Part of the Isabelle distribution.}
}
@Book{ adler:r:2010,
abstract = {Presents a guide to the R computer language, covering such
topics as the user interface, packages, syntax, objects,
functions, object-oriented programming, data sets, lattice
graphics, regression models, and bioconductor.},
added-at = {2013-01-10T22:39:38.000+0100},
address = {Sebastopol, CA},
author = {Adler, Joseph},
isbn = {9780596801700 059680170X},
keywords = {R},
publisher = {O'Reilly},
refid = 432987461,
title = {R in a nutshell},
year = 2010
}
@InCollection{ wenzel.ea:building:2007,
abstract = {We present the generic system framework of
Isabelle/Isarunderlying recent versions of Isabelle. Among
other things, Isar provides an infrastructure for Isabelle
plug-ins, comprising extensible state components and
extensible syntax that can be bound to tactical ML
programs. Thus the Isabelle/Isar architecture may be
understood as an extension and refinement of the
traditional LCF approach, with explicit infrastructure for
building derivative systems. To demonstrate the technical
potential of the framework, we apply it to a concrete
formalmethods tool: the HOL-Z 3.0 environment, which is
geared towards the analysis of Z specifications and formal
proof of forward-refinements.},
author = {Makarius Wenzel and Burkhart Wolff},
booktitle = {TPHOLs 2007},
editor = {Klaus Schneider and Jens Brandt},
language = {USenglish},
acknowledgement={none},
pages = {352--367},
publisher = pub-springer,
address = pub-springer:adr,
number = 4732,
series = s-lncs,
title = {Building Formal Method Tools in the {Isabelle}/{Isar}
Framework},
doi = {10.1007/978-3-540-74591-4_26},
year = 2007
}
@Misc{ w3c:ontologies:2015,
title = {Ontologies},
organisation = {W3c},
url = {https://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/ontology},
year = 2018
}
@Book{ boulanger:cenelec-50128:2015,
author = {Boulanger, Jean-Louis},
title = {{CENELEC} 50128 and {IEC} 62279 Standards},
publisher = {Wiley-ISTE},
year = 2015,
address = {Boston},
note = {The reference on the standard.}
}
@Booklet{ cc:cc-part3:2006,
bibkey = {cc:cc-part3:2006},
key = {Common Criteria},
institution = {Common Criteria},
language = {USenglish},
month = sep,
year = 2006,
public = {yes},
title = {Common Criteria for Information Technology Security
Evaluation (Version 3.1), {Part} 3: Security assurance
components},
note = {Available as document
\href{http://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/public/files/CCPART3V3.1R1.pdf}
{CCMB-2006-09-003}},
number = {CCMB-2006-09-003},
acknowledgement={brucker, 2007-04-24}
}
@Book{ nipkow.ea:isabelle:2002,
author = {Tobias Nipkow and Lawrence C. Paulson and Markus Wenzel},
title = {Isabelle/HOL---A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic},
publisher = pub-springer,
address = pub-springer:adr,
series = s-lncs,
volume = 2283,
doi = {10.1007/3-540-45949-9},
abstract = {This book is a self-contained introduction to interactive
proof in higher-order logic (\acs{hol}), using the proof
assistant Isabelle2002. It is a tutorial for potential
users rather than a monograph for researchers. The book has
three parts.
1. Elementary Techniques shows how to model functional
programs in higher-order logic. Early examples involve
lists and the natural numbers. Most proofs are two steps
long, consisting of induction on a chosen variable followed
by the auto tactic. But even this elementary part covers
such advanced topics as nested and mutual recursion. 2.
Logic and Sets presents a collection of lower-level tactics
that you can use to apply rules selectively. It also
describes Isabelle/\acs{hol}'s treatment of sets, functions
and relations and explains how to define sets inductively.
One of the examples concerns the theory of model checking,
and another is drawn from a classic textbook on formal
languages. 3. Advanced Material describes a variety of
other topics. Among these are the real numbers, records and
overloading. Advanced techniques are described involving
induction and recursion. A whole chapter is devoted to an
extended example: the verification of a security protocol. },
year = 2002,
acknowledgement={brucker, 2007-02-19},
bibkey = {nipkow.ea:isabelle:2002},
tags = {noTAG},
clearance = {unclassified},
timestap = {2008-05-26}
}
@InProceedings{ wenzel:asynchronous:2014,
author = {Makarius Wenzel},
title = {Asynchronous User Interaction and Tool Integration in
Isabelle/{PIDE}},
booktitle = {Interactive Theorem Proving (ITP)},
pages = {515--530},
year = 2014,
crossref = {klein.ea:interactive:2014},
doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-08970-6_33},
timestamp = {Sun, 21 May 2017 00:18:59 +0200},
abstract = { Historically, the LCF tradition of interactive theorem
proving was tied to the read-eval-print loop, with
sequential and synchronous evaluation of prover commands
given on the command-line. This user-interface technology
was adequate when R. Milner introduced his LCF proof
assistant in the 1970-ies, but it severely limits the
potential of current multicore hardware and advanced IDE
front-ends.
Isabelle/PIDE breaks this loop and retrofits the
read-eval-print phases into an asynchronous model of
document-oriented proof processing. Instead of feeding a
sequence of individual commands into the prover process,
the primary interface works via edits over a family of
document versions. Execution is implicit and managed by the
prover on its own account in a timeless and stateless
manner. Various aspects of interactive proof checking are
scheduled according to requirements determined by the
front-end perspective on the proof document, while making
adequate use of the CPU resources on multicore hardware on
the back-end.
Recent refinements of Isabelle/PIDE provide an explicit
concept of asynchronous print functions over existing proof
states. This allows to integrate long-running or
potentially non-terminating tools into the document-model.
Applications range from traditional proof state output
(which may consume substantial time in interactive
development) to automated provers and dis-provers that
report on existing proof document content (e.g.
Sledgehammer, Nitpick, Quickcheck in Isabelle/HOL).
Moreover, it is possible to integrate query operations via
additional GUI panels with separate input and output (e.g.
for Sledgehammer or find-theorems). Thus the Prover IDE
provides continuous proof processing, augmented by add-on
tools that help the user to continue writing proofs. }
}
@Proceedings{ klein.ea:interactive:2014,
editor = {Gerwin Klein and Ruben Gamboa},
title = {Interactive Theorem Proving - 5th International
Conference, {ITP} 2014, Held as Part of the Vienna Summer
of Logic, {VSL} 2014, Vienna, Austria, July 14-17, 2014.
Proceedings},
series = s-lncs,
volume = 8558,
publisher = pub-springer,
year = 2014,
doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-08970-6},
isbn = {978-3-319-08969-0}
}
@InProceedings{ bezzecchi.ea:making:2018,
title = {Making Agile Development Processes fit for V-style
Certification Procedures},
author = {Bezzecchi, S. and Crisafulli, P. and Pichot, C. and Wolff,
B.},
booktitle = {{ERTS'18}},
abstract = {We present a process for the development of safety and
security critical components in transportation systems
targeting a high-level certification (CENELEC 50126/50128,
DO 178, CC ISO/IEC 15408).
The process adheres to the objectives of an ``agile
development'' in terms of evolutionary flexibility and
continuous improvement. Yet, it enforces the overall
coherence of the development artifacts (ranging from proofs
over tests to code) by a particular environment (CVCE).
In particular, the validation process is built around a
formal development based on the interactive theorem proving
system Isabelle/HOL, by linking the business logic of the
application to the operating system model, down to code and
concrete hardware models thanks to a series of refinement
proofs.
We apply both the process and its support in CVCE to a
case-study that comprises a model of an odometric service
in a railway-system with its corresponding implementation
integrated in seL4 (a secure kernel for which a
comprehensive Isabelle development exists). Novel
techniques implemented in Isabelle enforce the coherence of
semi-formal and formal definitions within to specific
certification processes in order to improve their
cost-effectiveness. },
pdf = {https://www.lri.fr/~wolff/papers/conf/2018erts-agile-fm.pdf},
year = 2018,
series = {ERTS Conference Proceedings},
location = {Toulouse}
}
@Misc{ owl2012,
title = {OWL 2 Web Ontology Language},
note = {\url{https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/}, Document
Overview (Second Edition)},
author = {World Wide Web Consortium}
}
@Misc{ protege,
title = {Prot{\'e}g{\'e}},
note = {\url{https://protege.stanford.edu}},
year = 2018
}
@Misc{ cognitum,
title = {Fluent Editor},
note = {\url{http://www.cognitum.eu/Semantics/FluentEditor/}},
year = 2018
}
@Misc{ neon,
title = {The NeOn Toolkit},
note = {\url{http://neon-toolkit.org}},
year = 2018
}
@Misc{ owlgred,
title = {OWLGrEd},
note = {\url{http://owlgred.lumii.lv/}},
year = 2018
}
@Misc{ rontorium,
title = {R Language Package for FLuent Editor (rOntorion)},
note = {\url{http://www.cognitum.eu/semantics/FluentEditor/rOntorionFE.aspx}},
year = 2018
}
@InProceedings{ DBLP:conf/mkm/BlanchetteHMN15,
author = {Jasmin Christian Blanchette and Maximilian P. L. Haslbeck
and Daniel Matichuk and Tobias Nipkow},
title = {Mining the Archive of Formal Proofs},
booktitle = {Intelligent Computer Mathematics - International
Conference, {CICM} 2015, Washington, DC, USA, July 13-17,
2015, Proceedings},
pages = {3--17},
year = 2015,
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20615-8\_1},
doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-20615-8\_1},
timestamp = {Fri, 02 Nov 2018 09:40:47 +0100},
biburl = {https://dblp.org/rec/bib/conf/mkm/BlanchetteHMN15},
bibsource = {dblp computer science bibliography, https://dblp.org}
}
@InCollection{ brucker.ea:isabelle-ontologies:2018,
abstract = {While Isabelle is mostly known as part of Isabelle/HOL (an
interactive theorem prover), it actually provides a
framework for developing a wide spectrum of applications. A
particular strength of the Isabelle framework is the
combination of text editing, formal verification, and code
generation.\\\\Up to now, Isabelle's document preparation
system lacks a mechanism for ensuring the structure of
different document types (as, e.g., required in
certification processes) in general and, in particular,
mechanism for linking informal and formal parts of a
document.\\\\In this paper, we present Isabelle/DOF, a
novel Document Ontology Framework on top of Isabelle.
Isabelle/DOF allows for conventional typesetting \emph{as
well} as formal development. We show how to model document
ontologies inside Isabelle/DOF, how to use the resulting
meta-information for enforcing a certain document
structure, and discuss ontology-specific IDE support.},
address = {Heidelberg},
author = {Achim D. Brucker and Idir Ait-Sadoune and Paolo Crisafulli
and Burkhart Wolff},
booktitle = {Conference on Intelligent Computer Mathematics (CICM)},
doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-96812-4_3},
keywords = {Isabelle/Isar, HOL, Ontologies},
language = {USenglish},
location = {Hagenberg, Austria},
number = 11006,
pdf = {https://www.brucker.ch/bibliography/download/2018/brucker.ea-isabelle-ontologies-2018.pdf},
publisher = {Springer-Verlag},
series = {Lecture Notes in Computer Science},
title = {Using the {Isabelle} Ontology Framework: Linking the
Formal with the Informal},
url = {https://www.brucker.ch/bibliography/abstract/brucker.ea-isabelle-ontologies-2018},
year = 2018
}
@InCollection{ brucker.wolff:isa_def-design-impl:2019,
abstract = {DOF is a novel framework for defining ontologies and enforcing them during document
development and evolution. A major goal of DOF the integrated development of formal
certification documents (e.g., for Common Criteria or CENELEC 50128) that require
consistency across both formal and informal arguments. To support a consistent
development of formal and informal parts of a document, we implemented Isabelle/DOF,
an implementation of DOF on top of the formal methods framework Isabelle/HOL. A
particular emphasis is put on a deep integration into Isabelle’s IDE, which allows
for smooth ontology development as well as immediate ontological feedback during
the editing of a document.
In this paper, we give an in-depth presentation of the design concepts of DOF’s
Ontology Definition Language (ODL) and key aspects of the technology of its
implementation. Isabelle/DOF is the first ontology lan- guage supporting
machine-checked links between the formal and informal parts in an LCF-style
interactive theorem proving environment. Sufficiently annotated, large documents
can easily be developed collaboratively, while ensuring their consistency, and the
impact of changes (in the formal and the semi-formal content) is tracked automatically.},
address = {Heidelberg},
author = {Achim D. Brucker and Burkhart Wolff},
booktitle = {International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods},
keywords = {Isabelle/Isar, HOL, Ontologies, Documentation},
language = {USenglish},
location = {Oslo, Austria},
number = "to appear",
publisher = {Springer-Verlag},
series = {Lecture Notes in Computer Science},
title = {{I}sabelle/{DOF}: {D}esign and {I}mplementation},
year = 2019
}
@InProceedings{ DBLP:conf/itp/Wenzel14,
author = {Makarius Wenzel},
title = {Asynchronous User Interaction and Tool Integration in Isabelle/PIDE},
booktitle = {Interactive Theorem Proving (ITP)},
pages = {515--530},
year = 2014,
doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-08970-6_33},
timestamp = {Sun, 21 May 2017 00:18:59 +0200},
biburl = {https://dblp.org/rec/bib/conf/itp/Wenzel14},
bibsource = {dblp computer science bibliography, https://dblp.org}
}
@InProceedings{ DBLP:journals/corr/Wenzel14,
author = {Makarius Wenzel},
title = {System description: Isabelle/jEdit in 2014},
booktitle = {Proceedings Eleventh Workshop on User Interfaces for
Theorem Provers, {UITP} 2014, Vienna, Austria, 17th July
2014.},
pages = {84--94},
year = 2014,
doi = {10.4204/EPTCS.167.10},
timestamp = {Wed, 03 May 2017 14:47:58 +0200},
biburl = {https://dblp.org/rec/bib/journals/corr/Wenzel14},
bibsource = {dblp computer science bibliography, https://dblp.org}
}
@InProceedings{ DBLP:conf/mkm/BarrasGHRTWW13,
author = {Bruno Barras and Lourdes Del Carmen
Gonz{\'{a}}lez{-}Huesca and Hugo Herbelin and Yann
R{\'{e}}gis{-}Gianas and Enrico Tassi and Makarius Wenzel
and Burkhart Wolff},
title = {Pervasive Parallelism in Highly-Trustable Interactive
Theorem Proving Systems},
booktitle = {Intelligent Computer Mathematics - MKM, Calculemus, DML,
and Systems and Projects},
pages = {359--363},
year = 2013,
doi = {10.1007/978-3-642-39320-4_29},
timestamp = {Sun, 04 Jun 2017 10:10:26 +0200},
biburl = {https://dblp.org/rec/bib/conf/mkm/BarrasGHRTWW13},
bibsource = {dblp computer science bibliography, https://dblp.org}
}
@TechReport{ bsi:50128:2014,
type = {Standard},
key = {BS EN 50128:2011},
month = apr,
year = 2014,
series = {British Standards Publication},
title = {BS EN 50128:2011: Railway applications -- Communication,
signalling and processing systems -- Software for railway
control and protecting systems},
institution = {Britisch Standards Institute (BSI)},
keywords = {CENELEC},
abstract = {This European Standard is part of a group of related
standards. The others are EN 50126-1:1999 "Railway
applications -- The specification and demonstration of
Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Safety
(RAMS) -- Part 1: Basic requirements and generic process --
and EN 50129:2003 "Railway applications -- Communication,
signalling and processing systems -- Safety related
electronic systems for signalling". EN 50126-1 addresses
system issues on the widest scale, while EN 50129 addresses
the approval process for individual systems which can exist
within the overall railway control and protection system.
This European Standard concentrates on the methods which
need to be used in order to provide software which meets
the demands for safety integrity which are placed upon it
by these wider considerations. This European Standard
provides a set of requirements with which the development,
deployment and maintenance of any safety-related software
intended for railway control and protection applications
shall comply. It defines requirements concerning
organisational structure, the relationship between
organisations and division of responsibility involved in
the development, deployment and maintenanceactivities.}
}
@TechReport{ ds:50126-1:2014,
type = {Standard},
key = {DS/EN 50126-1:1999},
month = oct,
year = 2014,
series = {Dansk standard},
title = {EN 50126-1:1999: Railway applications -- The specification
and demonstration of Reliability, Availability,
Maintainability and Safety (RAMS) -- Part 1: Basic
requirements and generic process},
institution = {Danish Standards Foundation},
keywords = {CENELEC},
abstract = {This European Standard provides Railway Authorities and
the railway support industry, throughout the European
Union, with a process which will enable the implementation
of a consistent approach to the management of reliablity,
availability, maintainability and safety, denoted by the
acronym RAMS. Processes for the specification and
demonstration of RAMS requirements are cornerstones of this
standard. This European Standardc aims to promote a common
understanding and approach to the management of RAMS.
This European Standard can be applied systematically by a
railway authority and railway support industry,
throughoutall phasesof thelifecycle of a railway
application, to develop railway specific RAMS requirements
and to achieve compliance with these requirements. The
systems-level approach defined by this European Standard
facilitates assessment of the RAMS interactions between
elements of complex railway applications. This European
Standard promotes co-operation between railway authority
and railway support industry, within a variety of
procurementstrategies, in the achievement of an optimal
combination of RAMS and costfor railway applications.
Adoption of this European Standard will support the
principles of the European Single Market andfacilitate
Europeanrailway inter-operability. The process defined by
this European Standard assumesthat railway authorities and
railway support industry have business-level policies
addressing Quality, Performance and Safety. The approach
defined in this standard is consistent with the application
of quality management requirements contained within the ISO
9000 series of International standards.}
}
@Book{ paulson:ml:1996,
author = {Lawrence C. Paulson},
title = {{ML} for the Working Programmer},
publisher = {Cambridge Press},
year = 1996,
url = {http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~lp15/MLbook/pub-details.html},
acknowledgement={none}
}
@Book{ pollak:beginning:2009,
title = {Beginning Scala},
author = {David Pollak},
publisher = {Apress},
year = 2009,
isbn = {978-1-4302-1989-7}
}
@Article{ klein:operating:2009,
author = {Gerwin Klein},
title = {Operating System Verification --- An Overview},
journal = {S\={a}dhan\={a}},
publisher = pub-springer,
year = 2009,
volume = 34,
number = 1,
month = feb,
pages = {27--69},
abstract = {This paper gives a high-level introduction to the topic of
formal, interactive, machine-checked software verification
in general, and the verification of operating systems code
in particular. We survey the state of the art, the
advantages and limitations of machine-checked code proofs,
and describe two specific ongoing larger-scale verification
projects in more detail.}
}
@InProceedings{ wenzel:system:2014,
author = {Makarius Wenzel},
title = {System description: Isabelle/jEdit in 2014},
booktitle = {Workshop on User Interfaces for Theorem Provers, {UITP}},
pages = {84--94},
year = 2014,
doi = {10.4204/EPTCS.167.10},
timestamp = {Wed, 12 Sep 2018 01:05:15 +0200},
editor = {Christoph Benzm{\"{u}}ller and Bruno {Woltzenlogel Paleo}},
volume = 167
}
@InProceedings{ feliachi.ea:circus:2013,
author = {Abderrahmane Feliachi and Marie{-}Claude Gaudel and
Makarius Wenzel and Burkhart Wolff},
title = {The Circus Testing Theory Revisited in Isabelle/HOL},
booktitle = {{ICFEM}},
series = {Lecture Notes in Computer Science},
volume = 8144,
pages = {131--147},
publisher = {Springer},
year = 2013
}
@Article{ Klein2014,
author = {Gerwin Klein and June Andronick and Kevin Elphinstone and
Toby C. Murray and Thomas Sewell and Rafal Kolanski and
Gernot Heiser},
title = {Comprehensive formal verification of an {OS} microkernel},
journal = {{ACM} Trans. Comput. Syst.},
year = 2014,
volume = 32,
number = 1,
pages = {2:1--2:70},
bibsource = {dblp computer science bibliography, https://dblp.org},
biburl = {https://dblp.org/rec/bib/journals/tocs/KleinAEMSKH14},
doi = {10.1145/2560537},
timestamp = {Tue, 03 Jan 2017 11:51:57 +0100},
url = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2560537}
}
@InProceedings{ bicchierai.ea:using:2013,
author = {Bicchierai, Irene and Bucci, Giacomo and Nocentini, Carlo
and Vicario, Enrico},
editor = {Keller, Hubert B. and Pl{\"o}dereder, Erhard and Dencker,
Peter and Klenk, Herbert},
title = {Using Ontologies in the Integration of Structural,
Functional, and Process Perspectives in the Development of
Safety Critical Systems},
booktitle = {Reliable Software Technologies -- Ada-Europe 2013},
year = 2013,
publisher = {Springer Berlin Heidelberg},
address = {Berlin, Heidelberg},
pages = {95--108},
abstract = {We present a systematic approach for the efficient
management of the data involved in the development process
of safety critical systems, illustrating how the activities
performed during the life-cycle can be integrated in a
common framework. Information needed in these activities
reflects concepts that pertain to three different
perspectives: i) structural elements of design and
implementation; ii) functional requirements and quality
attributes; iii) organization of the overall process. The
integration of these concepts may considerably improve the
trade-off between reward and effort spent in verification
and quality-driven activities.},
isbn = {978-3-642-38601-5}
}
@Article{ zhao.ea:formal:2016,
author = {Yongwang Zhao and David San{\'{a}}n and Fuyuan Zhang and
Yang Liu},
title = {Formal Specification and Analysis of Partitioning
Operating Systems by Integrating Ontology and Refinement},
journal = {{IEEE} Trans. Industrial Informatics},
volume = 12,
number = 4,
pages = {1321--1331},
year = 2016,
abstract = {Partitioning operating systems (POSs) have been widely
applied in safety-critical domains from aerospace to
automotive. In order to improve the safety and the
certification process of POSs, the ARINC 653 standard has
been developed and complied with by the mainstream POSs.
Rigorous formalization of ARINC 653 can reveal hidden
errors in this standard and provide a necessary foundation
for formal verification of POSs and ARINC 653 applica-
tions. For the purpose of reusability and efficiency, a
novel methodology by integrating ontology and refinement is
proposed to formally specify and analyze POSs in this
paper. An ontology of POSs is developed as an intermediate
model between informal descriptions of ARINC 653 and the
formal specification in Event-B. A semiautomatic
translation from the ontology and ARINC 653 into Event-B is
implemented, which leads to a complete Event-B
specification for ARINC 653 compliant POSs. During the
formal analysis, six hidden errors in ARINC 653 have been
discovered and fixed in the Event-B specification. We also
validate the existence of these errors in two open-source
POSs, i.e., XtratuM and POK. By introducing the ontology,
the degree of automatic verification of the Event-B
specification reaches a higher level}
}
@InProceedings{ denney.ea:evidence:2013,
author = {E. {Denney} and G. {Pai}},
booktitle = {2013 IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability
Engineering Workshops (ISSREW)},
title = {Evidence arguments for using formal methods in software
certification},
year = 2013,
pages = {375--380},
abstract = {We describe a generic approach for automatically
integrating the output generated from a formal method/tool
into a software safety assurance case, as an evidence
argument, by (a) encoding the underlying reasoning as a
safety case pattern, and (b) instantiating it using the
data produced from the method/tool. We believe this
approach not only improves the trustworthiness of the
evidence generated from a formal method/tool, by explicitly
presenting the reasoning and mechanisms underlying its
genesis, but also provides a way to gauge the suitability
of the evidence in the context of the wider assurance case.
We illustrate our work by application to a real example-an
unmanned aircraft system - where we invoke a formal code
analysis tool from its autopilot software safety case,
automatically transform the verification output into an
evidence argument, and then integrate it into the former.},
keywords = {aircraft;autonomous aerial vehicles;formal
verification;safety-critical software;evidence
arguments;formal methods;software certification;software
safety assurance case;safety case pattern;unmanned aircraft
system;formal code analysis;autopilot software safety
case;verification output;Safety;Software
safety;Cognition;Computer
architecture;Context;Encoding;Safety cases;Safety case
patterns;Formal methods;Argumentation;Software
certification},
doi = {10.1109/ISSREW.2013.6688924},
month = {Nov}
}
@InProceedings{ kaluvuri.ea:quantitative:2014,
author = {Kaluvuri, Samuel Paul and Bezzi, Michele and Roudier,
Yves},
editor = {Eckert, Claudia and Katsikas, Sokratis K. and Pernul,
G{\"u}nther},
title = {A Quantitative Analysis of Common Criteria Certification
Practice},
booktitle = {Trust, Privacy, and Security in Digital Business},
year = 2014,
publisher = {Springer International Publishing},
address = {Cham},
pages = {132--143},
abstract = {The Common Criteria (CC) certification framework defines a
widely recognized, multi-domain certification scheme that
aims to provide security assurances about IT products to c\
onsumers. However, the CC scheme does not prescribe a
monitoring scheme for the CC practice, raising concerns
about the quality of the security assurance provided by the
certification a\ nd questions on its usefulness. In this
paper, we present a critical analysis of the CC practice
that concretely exposes the limitations of current
approaches. We also provide direction\ s to improve the CC
practice.},
isbn = {978-3-319-09770-1}
}
@InProceedings{ ekelhart.ea:ontological:2007,
author = {Ekelhart, Andreas and Fenz, Stefan and Goluch, Gernot and
Weippl, Edgar},
editor = {Venter, Hein and Eloff, Mariki and Labuschagne, Les and
Eloff, Jan and von Solms, Rossouw},
title = {Ontological Mapping of Common Criteria's Security
Assurance Requirements},
booktitle = {New Approaches for Security, Privacy and Trust in Complex
Environments},
year = 2007,
publisher = {Springer US},
address = {Boston, MA},
pages = {85--95},
abstract = {The Common Criteria (CC) for Information Technology
Security Evaluation provides comprehensive guidelines \ for
the evaluation and certification of IT security regarding
data security and data privacy. Due to the very comple\ x
and time-consuming certification process a lot of companies
abstain from a CC certification. We created the CC Ont\
ology tool, which is based on an ontological representation
of the CC catalog, to support the evaluator at the certi\
fication process. Tasks such as the planning of an
evaluation process, the review of relevant documents or the
creat\ ing of reports are supported by the CC Ontology
tool. With the development of this tool we reduce the time
and costs\ needed to complete a certification.},
isbn = {978-0-387-72367-9}
}
@InProceedings{ fenz.ea:formalizing:2009,
author = {Fenz, Stefan and Ekelhart, Andreas},
title = {Formalizing Information Security Knowledge},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on
Information, Computer, and Communications Security},
series = {ASIACCS '09},
year = 2009,
isbn = {978-1-60558-394-5},
location = {Sydney, Australia},
pages = {183--194},
numpages = 12,
url = {http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1533057.1533084},
doi = {10.1145/1533057.1533084},
acmid = 1533084,
publisher = {ACM},
address = {New York, NY, USA},
keywords = {information security, risk management, security ontology},
abstract = {Unified and formal knowledge models of the information
security domain are fundamental requirements for supporting
and enhancing existing risk management approaches. This
paper describes a security ontology which provides an
ontological structure for information security domain
knowledge. Besides existing best-practice guidelines such
as the German IT Grundschutz Manual also concrete knowledge
of the considered organization is incorporated. An
evaluation conducted by an information security expert team
has shown that this knowledge model can be used to support
a broad range of information security risk management
approaches.}
}
@InProceedings{ gleirscher.ea:incremental:2007,
author = {M. {Gleirscher} and D. {Ratiu} and B. {Schatz}},
booktitle = {2007 International Conference on Systems Engineering and
Modeling},
title = {Incremental Integration of Heterogeneous Systems Views},
year = 2007,
pages = {50--59},
abstract = {To master systems complexity, their industrial development
requires specialized heterogeneous views and techniques and
- correspondingly - engineering tools. These views
generally cover only parts of the system under development,
and critical development defects often occur at the gaps
between them. To successfully achieve an integration that
bridges these gaps, we must tackle it both from the
methodical as well as from the tooling sides. The former
requires answers to questions like: What are the views
provided by the tools? How are they related and extended to
achieve consistency or to form new views? - while the
latter requires answers to: How are views extracted from
the tools? How are they composed and provided to the user?
Our approach, suitable for incremental integration, is
demonstrated in the tool integration framework ToolNet.},
keywords = {computer aided engineering;computer aided software
engineering;software tools;heterogeneous systems
views;systems complexity;tool integration
framework;ToolNet;engineering tools;Systems engineering and
theory;Certification;Integrated circuit
modeling;Bridges;Software tools;Computer aided software
engineering;Computer aided engineering;Costs;Natural
languages;Formal specifications},
doi = {10.1109/ICSEM.2007.373334},
month = {March}
}
@Booklet{ omg:sacm:2018,
bibkey = {omg:sacm:2018},
key = omg,
abstract = {This specification defines a metamodel for representing
structured assurance cases. An Assurance Case is a set of
auditable claims, arguments, and evidence created to
support the claim that a defined system/service will
satisfy the particular requirements. An Assurance Case is a
document that facilitates information exchange between
various system stakeholders such as suppliers and
acquirers, and between the operator and regulator, where
the knowledge related to the safety and security of the
system is communicated in a clear and defendable way. Each
assurance case should communicate the scope of the system,
the operational context, the claims, the safety and/or
security arguments, along with the corresponding
evidence.},
publisher = omg,
language = {USenglish},
month = mar,
keywords = {SACM},
topic = {formalism},
note = {Available as OMG document
\href{http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/2018-02-02}
{formal/2018-02-02}},
public = {yes},
title = {Structured Assurance Case Metamodel (SACM)},
year = 2018
}
@InProceedings{ kelly.ea:goal:2004,
title = {The Goal Structuring Notation -- A Safety Argument
Notation},
booktitle = {Dependable Systems and Networks},
year = 2004,
month = jul,
author = {Tim Kelly and Rob Weaver}
}
@TechReport{ rushby:formal:1993,
author = {John Rushby},
title = {Formal Methods and the Certification of Critical Systems},
institution = {Computer Science Laboratory, SRI International},
year = 1993,
number = {SRI-CSL-93-7},
address = {Menlo Park, CA},
note = {Also issued under the title {\em Formal Methods and
Digital Systems Validation for Airborne Systems\/} as NASA
Contractor Report 4551, December 1993},
month = dec
}
@InProceedings{ greenaway.ea:bridging:2012,
author = {Greenaway, David and Andronick, June and Klein, Gerwin},
editor = {Beringer, Lennart and Felty, Amy},
title = {Bridging the Gap: Automatic Verified Abstraction of C},
booktitle = {Interactive Theorem Proving},
year = 2012,
publisher = {Springer Berlin Heidelberg},
address = {Berlin, Heidelberg},
pages = {99--115},
abstract = {Before low-level imperative code can be reasoned about in
an interactive theorem prover, it must first be converted
into a logical representation in that theorem prover.
Accurate translations of such code should be conservative,
choosing safe representations over representations
convenient to reason about. This paper bridges the gap
between conservative representation and convenient
reasoning. We present a tool that automatically abstracts
low-level C semantics into higher level specifications,
while generating proofs of refinement in Isabelle/HOL for
each translation step. The aim is to generate a verified,
human-readable specification, convenient for further
reasoning.},
isbn = {978-3-642-32347-8}
}
@inproceedings{BCPW2018,
title = {Making Agile Development Processes fit for V-style Certification
Procedures},
author = {Bezzecchi, S. and Crisafulli, P. and Pichot, C. and Wolff, B.},
booktitle = {{ERTS'18}},
abstract = {We present a process for the development of safety and security
critical components in transportation systems targeting a high-level
certification (CENELEC 50126/50128, DO 178, CC ISO/IEC 15408).
The process adheres to the objectives of an ``agile development'' in
terms of evolutionary flexibility and continuous improvement. Yet, it
enforces the overall coherence of the development artifacts (ranging from
proofs over tests to code) by a particular environment (CVCE).
In particular, the validation process is built around a formal development
based on the interactive theorem proving system Isabelle/HOL, by linking the
business logic of the application to the operating system model, down to
code and concrete hardware models thanks to a series of refinement proofs.
We apply both the process and its support in CVCE to a case-study that
comprises a model of an odometric service in a railway-system with its
corresponding implementation integrated in seL4 (a secure kernel for
which a comprehensive Isabelle development exists). Novel techniques
implemented in Isabelle enforce the coherence of semi-formal
and formal definitions within to specific certification processes
in order to improve their cost-effectiveness.
},
pdf = {https://www.lri.fr/~wolff/papers/conf/2018erts-agile-fm.pdf},
year = {2018},
series = {ERTS Conference Proceedings},
location = {Toulouse}
}
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink