The organization and the Secure Software Development Lifecycle (SSDLC) requires a comprehensive threat modeling approach to ensure the software security standards. Given the complexity and variety of potential threats, we aim to select and integrate multiple threat modeling frameworks.
Developing secure software systems, it's critical to identify and assess potential security threats. This helps in mitigating risks early in the design phase. Various threat modeling frameworks exist, each with its methodologies, strengths, and focuses. The challenge is to select the most appropriate framework(s) that align with our security goals, project requirements, and team expertise.
3. Decision Drivers
Comprehensiveness
Ability to cover a wide range of threats and vulnerabilities.
Ease of Use
Accessibility and ease of adoption by the development and security teams.
Alignment with Organizational Needs
Compatibility with our existing processes and risk management strategies.
Scalability
Effectiveness in handling both small-scale and large-scale projects.
Community and Tooling Support
Availability of community support and tooling to facilitate implementation.
4. Decision
STRIDE
Selected for its structured approach and comprehensive coverage of common threats. It is well-suited for identifying a broad range of security issues at different levels of the system. STRIDE provides a systematic way to categorize and address potential threats during the design phase.
MITRE ATT&CK
Chosen for its detailed taxonomy of adversary tactics and techniques based on real-world observations. This helps in understanding and anticipating advanced threats. MITRE ATT&CK offers a comprehensive and evolving knowledge base that reflects the latest threat landscape.
CVSS
Adopted for its standardized approach to evaluating the severity of vulnerabilities. It aids in prioritizing security efforts based on the impact. CVSS allows for consistent vulnerability assessment and prioritization, making it easier to manage and communicate risk levels.
LINDDUN
Included to specifically address privacy threats and ensure comprehensive privacy risk assessment. This complements our overall security threat modeling by focusing on privacy aspects. LINDDUN adds a crucial privacy dimension to our threat modeling efforts, ensuring that privacy concerns are thoroughly addressed.
5. Considered
STRIDE
Pros
Simple and easy to understand. Provides a comprehensive approach to identifying a wide range of threat types.
Cons
Limited in assessing the impact and likelihood of threats. May require additional tools for risk assessment.
DREAD
Pros
Offers a scoring system to evaluate threats. Helps prioritize threats based on their potential impact.
Cons
Subjective and less structured compared to other methods.
PASTA
Pros
Focuses on business objectives and the potential impact on them. Provides a comprehensive seven-step methodology.
Cons
More complex and time-consuming to implement. Requires a significant amount of expertise and resources.
LINDDUN
Pros
Specializes in privacy threat modeling. Systematic approach to identifying privacy issues.
Cons
Limited to privacy threats and does not cover all types of security threats. May need to be used in conjunction with other frameworks.
Attack Tree
Pros
Visual representation of threats and attack paths. Helps identify and prioritize vulnerabilities.
Cons
Can become complex for large systems. Does not provide specific risk assessment metrics.
MITRE ATT&CK
Pros
Comprehensive and detailed knowledge base of adversary tactics and techniques. Widely adopted and continuously updated.
Cons
Requires integration with other frameworks for complete threat modeling. May be overwhelming due to its extensive detail.
CVSS
Pros
Provides a standardized method for assessing the severity of vulnerabilities. Widely used and recognized.
Cons
Focuses primarily on vulnerabilities rather than comprehensive threat modeling. Does not address the identification process of threats.
TRIKE
Pros
Integrates threat modeling and risk management. Provides a framework for risk-based security decisions.
Cons
Less widely adopted and supported. Can be complex to implement effectively.
VAST
Pros
Designed to integrate with agile development processes. Scalable and provides visual models for threat analysis.
Cons
Relatively new and less proven in large-scale deployments. Limited resources and community support.
OCTAVE
Pros
Focuses on organizational risk management. Comprehensive methodology for evaluating security risks.
Cons
Time-consuming and resource-intensive. More suitable for larger organizations with mature security processes.
6. Implications
Process Changes
Training
Team members will need training on the integrated approach, including understanding and applying CVSS, LINDDUN, and STRIDE.
Tooling
Evaluate and potentially adopt tools that support these methodologies. This might include threat modeling tools, privacy assessment tools, and CVSS calculators.
Implementation Steps
Kickoff and Training
Initiate the integration process with a kickoff meeting and conduct comprehensive training sessions.
Tool Assessment and Integration
Evaluate available tools and integrate them into our development pipeline.
Pilot Project
Implement the integrated threat modeling approach on a pilot project to refine the process and address any issues.
Full Deployment
Roll out the refined process across all projects.
Evaluation and Monitoring
Continous Improvement
Regular reviews and updates to the threat modeling process will be conducted to ensure it remains effective and incorporates new security and privacy trends.
ADR Threat Modeling
Architectural Decision Records (ADR) on implementing Threat Modeling for Software Systems.
1. State
2. Context
The organization and the Secure Software Development Lifecycle (SSDLC) requires a comprehensive threat modeling approach to ensure the software security standards. Given the complexity and variety of potential threats, we aim to select and integrate multiple threat modeling frameworks.
Developing secure software systems, it's critical to identify and assess potential security threats. This helps in mitigating risks early in the design phase. Various threat modeling frameworks exist, each with its methodologies, strengths, and focuses. The challenge is to select the most appropriate framework(s) that align with our security goals, project requirements, and team expertise.
3. Decision Drivers
Comprehensiveness
Ease of Use
Alignment with Organizational Needs
Scalability
Community and Tooling Support
4. Decision
STRIDE
Selected for its structured approach and comprehensive coverage of common threats. It is well-suited for identifying a broad range of security issues at different levels of the system. STRIDE provides a systematic way to categorize and address potential threats during the design phase.
MITRE ATT&CK
Chosen for its detailed taxonomy of adversary tactics and techniques based on real-world observations. This helps in understanding and anticipating advanced threats. MITRE ATT&CK offers a comprehensive and evolving knowledge base that reflects the latest threat landscape.
CVSS
Adopted for its standardized approach to evaluating the severity of vulnerabilities. It aids in prioritizing security efforts based on the impact. CVSS allows for consistent vulnerability assessment and prioritization, making it easier to manage and communicate risk levels.
LINDDUN
Included to specifically address privacy threats and ensure comprehensive privacy risk assessment. This complements our overall security threat modeling by focusing on privacy aspects. LINDDUN adds a crucial privacy dimension to our threat modeling efforts, ensuring that privacy concerns are thoroughly addressed.
5. Considered
STRIDE
Pros
Cons
DREAD
Pros
Cons
PASTA
Pros
Cons
LINDDUN
Pros
Cons
Attack Tree
Pros
Cons
MITRE ATT&CK
Pros
Cons
CVSS
Pros
Cons
TRIKE
Pros
Cons
VAST
Pros
Cons
OCTAVE
Pros
Cons
6. Implications
Process Changes
Training
Tooling
Implementation Steps
Kickoff and Training
Tool Assessment and Integration
Pilot Project
Full Deployment
Evaluation and Monitoring
7. References