pith. sign in

arxiv: 1906.10416 · v1 · pith:Z4I6HFH2new · submitted 2019-06-25 · 💻 cs.CR

Requirements and Recommendations for IoT/IIoT Models to automate Security Assurance through Threat Modelling, Security Analysis and Penetration Testing

Ralph Ankele , Stefan Marksteiner , Kai Nahrgang , Heribert Vallant This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 16:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CR
keywords IoTIIoTthreat modellingsecurity analysispenetration testingmetadataautomationsecurity assurance
0
0 comments X

The pith

Metadata extracted from standard development diagrams can serve as input to automate threat modelling, security analysis and penetration testing for IoT and IIoT systems.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper proposes extracting metadata from diagrams and models already used in typical software development to drive automated security assurance for IoT and IIoT setups. This is intended to handle the scale of large networks where manual testing falls short and to do so without requiring detailed security expertise from developers. The work focuses on defining what metadata must be present in those models so that security tools can use it directly as input parameters. A sympathetic reader would see this as a way to embed security checks into existing workflows rather than treating them as a separate, expert-only step.

Core claim

The central claim is that requirements and recommendations for metadata in IoT/IIoT models can provide the necessary input parameters for security assurance tools, enabling the automation of threat modelling, security analysis and penetration testing by pulling data from commonly used development diagrams without prior detailed security knowledge.

What carries the argument

Metadata requirements and recommendations drawn from standard software development diagrams and models to serve as input parameters for security assurance tools.

If this is right

  • Security processes can scale to large IoT/IIoT networks without relying on manual methods that cannot keep up.
  • Developers can perform threat modelling and testing without needing specialized security training.
  • Existing diagrams in the software development process become direct sources for security tool inputs.
  • Specific metadata fields in models become standardized requirements for security automation.
  • Security assurance integrates into normal development workflows rather than occurring as a separate phase.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same metadata approach could apply to non-industrial IoT or general software systems that use similar diagrams.
  • Integration with common modelling notations such as UML or architecture diagrams would make adoption easier.
  • Standardized metadata schemas might emerge that multiple security tools could consume interchangeably.
  • A practical test would involve building a prototype tool that reads the metadata and measures how many real-world threats it identifies in sample IoT setups.

Load-bearing premise

The proposed metadata extracted from standard development diagrams will be sufficient and usable by security assurance tools to perform automated threat modelling, analysis and testing.

What would settle it

Security assurance tools given the recommended metadata from IoT/IIoT diagrams fail to produce threat models or penetration test cases that cover known vulnerabilities in a test network.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1906.10416 by Heribert Vallant, Kai Nahrgang, Ralph Ankele, Stefan Marksteiner.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) is a subset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Estimated growth of connected devices in the IoT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example attacks on IIoT systems. • Tampering with data. Data tampering occurs when data is malicious modified. This includes data at rest, data in use as well as data in transit. • Repudiation This means that an entity may plausibly deny an action that it has taken. Countering these threats usually requires a combination of authentication, authorization and logging, ideally in a cryptographically secured w… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The factories of the future require efficient interconnection of their physical machines into the cyber space to cope with the emerging need of an increased uptime of machines, higher performance rates, an improved level of productivity and a collective collaboration along the supply chain. With the rapid growth of the Internet of Things (IoT), and its application in industrial areas, the so called Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT)/Industry 4.0 emerged. However, further to the rapid growth of IoT/IIoT systems, cyber attacks are an emerging threat and simple manual security testing can often not cope with the scale of large IoT/IIoT networks. In this paper, we suggest to extract metadata from commonly used diagrams and models in a typical software development process, to automate the process of threat modelling, security analysis and penetration testing, without detailed prior security knowledge. In that context, we present requirements and recommendations for metadata in IoT/IIoT models that are needed as necessary input parameters of security assurance tools.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that metadata extracted from commonly used diagrams and models in typical software development processes can serve as input parameters for security assurance tools, enabling automated threat modelling, security analysis, and penetration testing for IoT/IIoT systems without requiring detailed prior security knowledge. It presents a set of requirements and recommendations for such metadata.

Significance. If the metadata requirements are shown to be sufficient and usable, the work could support scaling of automated security processes in large IoT/IIoT deployments. The paper offers no empirical validation, implementation, or case study, so its significance remains prospective rather than demonstrated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the proposed metadata 'are needed as necessary input parameters of security assurance tools' to automate the processes is asserted without any derivation, example application, or validation that the listed metadata suffice for existing or future tools.
  2. [Recommendations section (as described in abstract)] The manuscript's central recommendation rests on the assumption that metadata from standard development diagrams will be sufficient and usable for automation, but no test, prototype, or mapping to concrete tool inputs is provided to support this.
minor comments (1)
  1. The specific metadata elements and their extraction process from diagrams could be defined more explicitly with examples to improve clarity and usability of the recommendations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed review. The manuscript proposes metadata requirements and recommendations to support future automation of security assurance processes; it does not claim to deliver validated implementations. We address the major comments below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] the claim that the proposed metadata 'are needed as necessary input parameters of security assurance tools' to automate the processes is asserted without any derivation, example application, or validation that the listed metadata suffice for existing or future tools.

    Authors: The listed metadata elements were identified by examining the data inputs required by established threat-modeling methods (STRIDE on data-flow diagrams), security-analysis frameworks, and automated penetration-testing approaches. We agree the abstract states the necessity without showing this derivation. We will revise the abstract and add a short rationale subsection in the introduction that traces each metadata category to the corresponding security-process step. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The manuscript's central recommendation rests on the assumption that metadata from standard development diagrams will be sufficient and usable for automation, but no test, prototype, or mapping to concrete tool inputs is provided to support this.

    Authors: The paper's scope is the definition of metadata requirements rather than an implemented automation pipeline. We will add a discussion section that sketches example mappings to representative tools (e.g., Microsoft Threat Modeling Tool, automated scanners) and explicitly states that empirical validation remains future work. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Empirical validation, prototype implementation, or case study demonstrating sufficiency of the metadata, which lies outside the requirements-specification focus of the present manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper presents a set of metadata requirements and recommendations extracted from standard development diagrams for use as inputs to security assurance tools. It contains no equations, derivations, fitted parameters, or formal proofs. The central claim is a list of suggestions rather than a result obtained by reducing prior inputs or self-citations; the work is self-contained as a position/recommendation document with no load-bearing steps that collapse by construction to the paper's own assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is a recommendations document with no mathematical structure, fitted parameters, or formal axioms.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5720 in / 994 out tokens · 25201 ms · 2026-05-25T16:39:19.092497+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Farkhod Alisherov A and Feruza Sattarova Y. 2009. Methodology for Penetration Testing.International Journal of Grid and Distributed Computing(2009), 43–50

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    ZigBee Alliance. 2012. ZigBee Specification, 053474r20

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    N. A. Almubairik and G. Wills. 2016. Automated penetration testing based on a threat model. In2016 11th International Conference for Internet Technology and Secured Transactions (ICITST). 413–414. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICITST.2016. 7856742

    work page doi:10.1109/icitst.2016 2016

  4. [4]

    Ralph Ankele, Christoph Dobraunig, Jian Guo, Eran Lambooij, Gregor Leander, and Yosuke Todo. 2019. Zero-Correlation Attacks on Tweakable Block Ciphers with Linear Tweakey Expansion.IACR Transactions on Symmetric Cryptology 2019, 1 (Mar. 2019), 192–235. https://doi.org/10.13154/tosc.v2019.i1.192-235

    work page doi:10.13154/tosc.v2019.i1.192-235 2019

  5. [5]

    Ralph Ankele and Stefan Kölbl. 2019. Mind the Gap - A Closer Look at the Security of Block Ciphers against Differential Cryptanalysis. InSelected Areas in Cryptography – SAC 2018, Carlos Cid and Michael J. Jacobson Jr. (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 163–190

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Arkin, S

    B. Arkin, S. Stender, and G. McGraw. 2005. Software penetration testing.IEEE Security Privacy3, 1 (Jan 2005), 84–87. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2005.23

    work page doi:10.1109/msp.2005.23 2005

  7. [7]

    Andrew Banks and Rahul Gupta. 2014. MQTT Version 3.1.1. http://docs. oasis-open.org/mqtt/mqtt/v3.1.1/os/mqtt-v3.1.1-os.html

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Beurdouche, K

    B. Beurdouche, K. Bhargavan, A. Delignat-Lavaud, C. Fournet, M. Kohlweiss, A. Pironti, P. Strub, and J. Zinzindohoue. 2015. A Messy State of the Union: Taming the Composite State Machines of TLS. In2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 535–552. https: //doi.org/10.1109/SP.2015.39

    work page doi:10.1109/sp.2015.39 2015

  9. [9]

    John Biggs. 2016. Hackers release source code for a power- ful DDoS app called Mirai. https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/10/ hackers-release-source-code-for-a-powerful-ddos-app-called-mirai/ ?guccounter=1

    work page 2016

  10. [10]

    Hugh Boyes, Bil Hallaq, Joe Cunningham, and Tim Watson. 2018. The industrial internet of things (IIoT): An analysis framework.Computers in Industry101 (2018), 1 – 12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2018.04.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compind.2018.04.015 2018

  11. [11]

    Malte Brettel, Niklas Friederichsen, Michael Keller, and Marius Rosenberg. 2014. How Virtualization, Decentralization and Network Building Change the Man- ufacturing Landscape: An Industry 4.0 Perspective.International journal of mechanical, aerospace, industrial and mechatronics engineering8, 1 (2014), 37–44. https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/465283

    work page 2014

  12. [12]

    Ge Chu and Alexei Lisitsa. 2019. Penetration Testing for Internet of Things and Its Automation. https://doi.org/10.1109/HPCC/SmartCity/DSS.2018.00244

    work page doi:10.1109/hpcc/smartcity/dss.2018.00244 2019

  13. [13]

    LoRa Alliance Technical Committee. 2017. LoRaW AN TM 1.1 Specification

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    Cas Cremers, Marko Horvat, Jonathan Hoyland, Sam Scott, and Thyla van der Merwe. 2017. A Comprehensive Symbolic Analysis of TLS 1.3. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1773–1788. https://doi.org/10.1145/3133956.3134063 ARES ’19, August 26–29, 2019, Canterbury, United K...

    work page doi:10.1145/3133956.3134063 2017

  15. [15]

    Deering and R

    S. Deering and R. Hinden. 1998.RFC 2460 Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification. Internet Engineering Task Force. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2460

    work page 1998

  16. [16]

    V. A. Desnitsky, I. V. Kotenko, and S. B. Nogin. 2015. Detection of anomalies in data for monitoring of security components in the Internet of Things. In 2015 XVIII International Conference on Soft Computing and Measurements (SCM). 189–192. https://doi.org/10.1109/SCM.2015.7190452

    work page doi:10.1109/scm.2015.7190452 2015

  17. [17]

    Rachna Dhamija, J Doug Tygar, and Marti Hearst. 2006. Why phishing works. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems. ACM, 581–590

    work page 2006

  18. [18]

    Dolev and A

    D. Dolev and A. Yao. 1983. On the Security of Public Key Protocols.IEEE Trans. Inf. Theor.29, 2 (March 1983), 198–208. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1983.1056650

    work page doi:10.1109/tit.1983.1056650 1983

  19. [19]

    S. Earley. 2015. Analytics, Machine Learning, and the Internet of Things.IT Professional17, 1 (Jan 2015), 10–13. https://doi.org/10.1109/MITP.2015.3

    work page doi:10.1109/mitp.2015.3 2015

  20. [20]

    Viet Tung Hoang, David Miller, and Ni Trieu. 2019. Attacks Only Get Better: How to Break FF3 on Large Domains. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2019/244. https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/244

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    2003.Writing secure code

    Michael Howard and David LeBlanc. 2003.Writing secure code. Pearson Educa- tion

    work page 2003

  22. [22]

    Akiko Inoue, Tetsu Iwata, Kazuhiko Minematsu, and Bertram Poettering. 2019. Cryptanalysis of OCB2: Attacks on Authenticity and Confidentiality. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2019/311. https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/311

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    Standard

    ISO/IEC 19772:2009 2009.Information technology – Security techniques – Au- thenticated encryption. Standard. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH

    work page 2009

  24. [24]

    Tanner Johnson. 2018. Growing Cybersecurity Concerns Within the Industrial IoT (IIoT). https://technology.ihs.com/607003/ growing-cybersecurity-concerns-within-the-industrial-iot-iiot Accessed: 2019-05-15

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    Antti Karjalainen, Riku HietamÃďki, Matti Kamunen, and Neel Mehta. 2013. OpenSSL ’Heartbleed’ vulnerability CVE-2014-0160. Available from MITRE, CVE-ID CVE-2014-0160.. http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name= CVE-2014-0160

    work page 2013

  26. [26]

    Kolias, G

    C. Kolias, G. Kambourakis, A. Stavrou, and J. Voas. 2017. DDoS in the IoT: Mirai and Other Botnets.Computer50, 7 (2017), 80–84. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC. 2017.201

    work page doi:10.1109/mc 2017

  27. [27]

    2014.This POODLE Bites: Exploit- ing The SSL 3.0 Fallback

    Bodo Moller, Thai Duong, Krzysztof Kotowicz. 2014.This POODLE Bites: Exploit- ing The SSL 3.0 Fallback. https://www.openssl.org/~bodo/ssl-poodle.pdf

    work page 2014

  28. [28]

    Katharina Krombholz, Heidelinde Hobel, Markus Huber, and Edgar Weippl. 2015. Advanced social engineering attacks.Journal of Information Security and appli- cations22 (2015), 113–122

    work page 2015

  29. [29]

    Silicon Labs. 2019. Z-Wave Plus Device Type v2 Specification

    work page 2019

  30. [30]

    P. Lade, R. Ghosh, and S. Srinivasan. 2017. Manufacturing Analytics and Industrial Internet of Things.IEEE Intelligent Systems32, 3 (May 2017), 74–79. https: //doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2017.49

    work page doi:10.1109/mis.2017.49 2017

  31. [31]

    Selena Larson. 2017. FDA confirms that St. Jude’s cardiac devices can be hacked. https://money.cnn.com/2017/01/09/technology/fda-st-jude-cardiac-hack/

    work page 2017

  32. [32]

    E. A. Lee. 2008. Cyber Physical Systems: Design Challenges. In2008 11th IEEE International Symposium on Object and Component-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing (ISORC). 363–369. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISORC.2008.25

    work page doi:10.1109/isorc.2008.25 2008

  33. [33]

    Jay Lee, Behrad Bagheri, and Hung-An Kao. 2015. A Cyber-Physical Systems architecture for Industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems.Manufacturing Letters 3 (2015), 18 – 23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mfglet.2014.12.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.mfglet.2014.12.001 2015

  34. [34]

    GaÃńtan Leurent and Thomas Peyrin. 2019. From Collisions to Chosen-Prefix Col- lisions - Application to Full SHA-1. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2019/459. https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/459

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    S. Lipner. 2004. The trustworthy computing security development lifecycle. In 20th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference. 2–13. https://doi.org/10. 1109/CSAC.2004.41

    work page 2004

  36. [36]

    Industry 4.0

    Duško Lukač. 2015. The fourth ICT-based industrial revolution "Industry 4.0" âĂŤHMI and the case of CAE/CAD innovation with EPLAN P8. 835–838. https: //doi.org/10.1109/TELFOR.2015.7377595

    work page doi:10.1109/telfor.2015.7377595 2015

  37. [37]

    Aaron Marback, Hyunsook Do, Ke He, Samuel Kondamarri, and Dianxiang Xu

    work page

  38. [38]

    https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.2111

    A threat model – based approach to security testing.Software: Practice and Experience43 (02 2013). https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.2111

    work page doi:10.1002/spe.2111 2013

  39. [39]

    Stefan Marksteiner, Víctor Juan Expósito Jiménez, Heribert Vallant, and Herwig Zeiner. 2017. An overview of wireless IoT protocol security in the smart home domain. InProceedings of 2017 Internet of Things Business Models, Users, and Networks Conference (CTTE). 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/CTTE.2017.8260940

    work page doi:10.1109/ctte.2017.8260940 2017

  40. [40]

    Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek. 2015. Remote Exploitation of an Un- altered Passenger Vehicle. https://www.blackhat.com/us-15/briefings.html# remote-exploitation-of-an-unaltered-passenger-vehicle

    work page 2015

  41. [41]

    Nicky Mouha, Qingju Wang, Dawu Gu, and Bart Preneel. 2012. Differential and Linear Cryptanalysis Using Mixed-Integer Linear Programming. InInformation Security and Cryptology, Chuan-Kun Wu, Moti Yung, and Dongdai Lin (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 57–76

    work page 2012

  42. [42]

    JaeKwan Park, YongSuk Suh, and Cheol Park. 2016. Implementation of cyber security for safety systems of nuclear facilities.Progress in Nuclear Energy88 (2016), 88 – 94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2015.12.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.pnucene.2015.12.009 2016

  43. [43]

    Poovendran

    R. Poovendran. 2010. Cyber-Physical Systems: Close Encounters Between Two Parallel Worlds [Point of View].Proc. IEEE98, 8 (Aug 2010), 1363–1366. https: //doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2010.2050377

    work page doi:10.1109/jproc.2010.2050377 2010

  44. [44]

    Bluetooth SIG Proprietary. 2019. Bluetooth Core Specification V5.1

    work page 2019

  45. [45]

    Rajkumar, I

    R. Rajkumar, I. Lee, L. Sha, and J. Stankovic. 2010. Cyber-physical systems: The next computing revolution. InDesign Automation Conference. 731–736. https: //doi.org/10.1145/1837274.1837461

    work page doi:10.1145/1837274.1837461 2010

  46. [46]

    2015.Kali Linux: Wireless Pene- tration Testing Beginner’s Guide

    Vivek Ramachandran and Cameron Buchanan. 2015.Kali Linux: Wireless Pene- tration Testing Beginner’s Guide. Packt Publishing

    work page 2015

  47. [47]

    Shahid Raza, Linus Wallgren, and Thiemo Voigt. 2013. SVELTE: Real-time in- trusion detection in the Internet of Things.Ad Hoc Networks11, 8 (2013), 2661 –

    work page 2013

  48. [48]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adhoc.2013.04.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.adhoc.2013.04.014 2013

  49. [49]

    Ronen, A

    E. Ronen, A. Shamir, A. Weingarten, and C. OâĂŹFlynn. 2017. IoT Goes Nuclear: Creating a ZigBee Chain Reaction. In2017 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1109/SP.2017.14

    work page doi:10.1109/sp.2017.14 2017

  50. [50]

    Vinay Sachidananda, Shachar Siboni, Asaf Shabtai, Jinghui Toh, Suhas Bhairav, and Yuval Elovici. 2017. Let the Cat Out of the Bag: A Holistic Approach To- wards Security Analysis of the Internet of Things. InProceedings of the 3rd ACM International Workshop on IoT Privacy, Trust, and Security (IoTPTS ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3–10. https://doi.org/10....

    work page doi:10.1145/3055245.3055251 2017

  51. [51]

    Sajid, H

    A. Sajid, H. Abbas, and K. Saleem. 2016. Cloud-Assisted IoT-Based SCADA Systems Security: A Review of the State of the Art and Future Challenges.IEEE Access4 (2016), 1375–1384. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2549047

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2016.2549047 2016

  52. [52]

    Ina Schieferdecker, JÃijrgen Groçmann, and Martin Schneider. 2012. Model- Based Security Testing.Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science80 (02 2012). https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.80.1

    work page doi:10.4204/eptcs.80.1 2012

  53. [53]

    Wentao Shang, Yingdi Yu, Ralph Droms, and Lixia Zhang. 2016. Challenges in IoT networking via TCP/IP architecture.NDN, Technical Report NDN-0038(2016)

    work page 2016

  54. [54]

    2014.Threat modeling: Designing for security

    Adam Shostack. 2014.Threat modeling: Designing for security. John Wiley & Sons

    work page 2014

  55. [55]

    Statista. 2019. Internet of Things (IoT) connected devices installed base world- wide from 2015 to 2025 (in billions). https://www.statista.com/statistics/471264/ iot-number-of-connected-devices-worldwide/. Accessed: 2019-05-06

    work page 2019

  56. [56]

    Marc Stevens, Elie Bursztein, Pierre Karpman, Ange Albertini, and Yarik Markov

    work page

  57. [57]

    InAdvances in Cryptology – CRYPTO 2017, Jonathan Katz and Hovav Shacham (Eds.)

    The First Collision for Full SHA-1. InAdvances in Cryptology – CRYPTO 2017, Jonathan Katz and Hovav Shacham (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 570–596

    work page 2017

  58. [58]

    Siwei Sun, David Gerault, Pascal Lafourcade, Qianqian Yang, Yosuke Todo, Kexin Qiao, and Lei Hu. 2017. Analysis of AES, SKINNY, and Others with Constraint Programming.IACR Transactions on Symmetric Cryptology2017, 1 (Mar. 2017), 281–306. https://doi.org/10.13154/tosc.v2017.i1.281-306

    work page doi:10.13154/tosc.v2017.i1.281-306 2017

  59. [59]

    S. Türpe. 2017. The Trouble with Security Requirements. In2017 IEEE 25th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE). 122–133. https://doi. org/10.1109/RE.2017.13

    work page doi:10.1109/re.2017.13 2017

  60. [60]

    Shiyong Wang, Jiafu Wan, Di Li, and Chunhua Zhang. 2016. Implementing smart factory of industrie 4.0: an outlook.International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks12, 1 (2016), 3159805

    work page 2016

  61. [61]

    Dianxiang Xu, Manghui Tu, Michael Sanford, Lijo Thomas, Daniel Woodraska, and Weifeng Xu. 2012. Automated Security Test Generation with Formal Threat Models.IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing - TDSC9 (07 2012), 526–540. https://doi.org/10.1109/TDSC.2012.24

    work page doi:10.1109/tdsc.2012.24 2012

  62. [62]

    Jonathan Yung, Hervé Debar, and Louis Granboulan. 2017. Security Issues and Mitigation in Ethernet POWERLINK. InSecurity of Industrial Control Systems and Cyber-Physical Systems, Nora Cuppens-Boulahia, Costas Lambrinoudakis, Frédéric Cuppens, and Sokratis Katsikas (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 87–102

    work page 2017

  63. [63]

    Bruno Bogaz ZarpelÃčo, Rodrigo Sanches Miani, ClÃąudio Toshio Kawakani, and Sean Carlisto de Alvarenga. 2017. A survey of intrusion detection in Internet of Things.Journal of Network and Computer Applications84 (2017), 25 – 37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2017.02.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2017.02.009 2017