EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 150 (2018) MATEC Web of Conferences, 150 (2018) 06005 References
Open Access
Issue
MATEC Web of Conferences
Volume 150, 2018
Malaysia Technical Universities Conference on Engineering and Technology (MUCET 2017)
Article Number 06005
Number of page(s) 6
Section Information & Communication Technology (ICT), Science (SCI) & Mathematics (SM)
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201815006005
Published online 23 February 2018
  1. S. Roy, C. Ellis, S. Shiva, D. Dasgupta, V. Shandilya, and Q. Wu, “A survey of game theory as applied to network security,” 2010 43rd Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sci., pp. 1–10, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  2. J. Lee, “An Enhanced Risk Formula for Software Security Vulnerabilities,” Inf. Syst. Audit Control Assoc., vol. Volume 4, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  3. H. Dawood, “IPv6 Security Vulnerabilities,” Int. J. Inf. Secur. Sci., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 100,–105, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  4. Z. Adelsberger, G. Grubor, and I. Nad, “Methodological approach to risk assessment in building security,” Coll. Antropol., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 215–227, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  5. M. Schumacher, E. Fernandez-Buglioni, D. Hybertson, F. Buschmann, and P. Sommerlad, Security Patterns: Integrating Security and Systems Engineering, 1st Edition. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2006. [Google Scholar]
  6. A. Damodaran, Investment valuation: Tools and techniques for determining the value of any asset. John Wiley & Sons, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  7. S. Tanimoto, R. Sato, K. Kato, M. Iwashita, Y. Seki, H. Sato, and A. Kanai, “A Study of Risk Assessment Quantification in Cloud Computing,” in International Conference on Network-Based Information Systems (NBiS), 2014, pp. 426–431. [Google Scholar]
  8. A. Strauss and J. Corbin, “Grounded theory methodology”, Handb. Qual. Res., vol. 17, pp. 273–285, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  9. C.-C. Lo and W.-J. Chen, “A hybrid information security risk assessment procedure considering interdependences between controls”, Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 247–257, 2012. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. M. Riaz, J. Stallings, M. P. Singh, J. Slankas, and L. Williams, “DIGS: A Framework for Discovering Goals for Security Requirements Engineering,” in Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 2016, p. 35. [Google Scholar]
  11. S. P. NIST, “800–30,” RiskManag. Guid. Inf. Technol. Syst., pp. 800–830, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  12. M. Gregg and D. Kim, Inside network security assessment: Guarding your IT infrastructure, 1st ed. Sams, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  13. J. Hughes and G. Cybenko, “Quantitative metrics and risk assessment: The three tenets model of cybersecurity,” Technology Innovation Management Review, 2013. [Online]. Available: http://timreview.ca/article/712. [Google Scholar]
  14. A. and I. M. D. United States General Accounting Office, “Information security risk assessment: Practices of leading organizations,” 1999. [Google Scholar]
  15. A. Rosli, A. M. Taib, and W. N. A. W. Ali, “Utilizing the Enhanced Risk Assessment Equation to Determine the Apparent Risk due to User Datagram Protocol (UDP) Flooding Attack,” Sains Humanika, vol. 9, no. 1–4, 2017. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. J. Bhattacharjee, A. Sengupta, and C. Mazumdar, “A formal methodology for enterprise information security risk assessment,” in 2013 International Conference on Risks and Security of Internet and Systems (CRiSIS), 2013, pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  17. N. Vavoulas and C. Xenakis, “A quantitative risk analysis approach for deliberate threats,” in International Workshop on Critical Information Infrastructures Security, 2010, pp. 13–25. [Google Scholar]
  18. D. Zagar and K. Grgic, “IPv6 security threats and possible solutions,” 2006 WorldAutom. Congr., pp. 1 –7, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  19. W. M. Eddy, “TCP SYN flooding attacks and common mitigations,” 2007. [Google Scholar]
  20. X. Yang, T. Ma, and Y. Shi, “Typical dos/ddos threats under ipv6,” Int. Multi-Conference Comput. Glob. Inf. Technol., 2007. [Google Scholar]
  21. C. Caicedo, J. Joshi, and S. Tuladhar, “IPv6 security challenges,” Computer (Long. Beach. Calif)., 2009. [Google Scholar]
  22. V. Veselý, P. Matoušek, and M. Švéda, “Multicast simulation and modeling in OMNeT++,” in Proceedings of the 6th International ICST Conference on Simulation Tools and Techniques, 2013, pp. 142–145. [Google Scholar]
  23. A. Varga, “OMNeT++,” in Modeling and Tools for Network Simulation, Springer, 2010, pp. 35–59. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. A. Rosli, A. M. Taib, H. Baharin, and W. N. A. Wan, “Enhanced risk assessment equation for IPv6 deployment,” 5th Int. Conf. Computer and Informatics (ICOCI2015), 2015. [Google Scholar]
  25. A. Munteanu, “Information security risk assessment: The qualitative versus quantitative dilemma,” in Managing Information in the Digital Economy: Issues & Solutions-Proceedings of the 6th International Business Information Management Association(IBIMA) Conference, 2006, pp. 227–232. [Google Scholar]
  26. V. Visintine, “An introduction to information risk assessment,” SANS Inst., vol. 8, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  27. J. Alwang, P. B. Siegel “Vulnerability: a view from different disciplines,” 2001. [Online]. Available: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOCIALPRO TECTION/Resources/SP-Discussion-papers/Social-Risk-Management-DP/0115.pdf. [Accessed: 09-Mar-2016]. [Google Scholar]
  28. J. M. Murphy, “ Asset value calculators.” Google Patents, 20-Jan-1976. [Google Scholar]
  29. R. Ross, S. Katzke, A. Johnson, M. Swanson, and G. Stoneburner, “NIST SP800-39, managing risk from information systems an organizational perspective.” Gaithersberg, MD: NIST, http://csrc. nist. gov/publications/drafts/800-39/SP800-39-spd-sz. pdf, 2008. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.