Cited by 26Cloud Computing and Resource ManagementCloud Data Security SolutionsSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices

Designing Monitoring Systems for Continuous Certification of Cloud Services: Deriving Meta-requirements and Design Guidelines

Lins, Sebastian, Schneider, Stephan, Szefer, Jakub, Ibraheem, Shafeeq, Ali, Ali·2019·Communications of the Association for Information Systems

Abstract

Continuous service certification (CSC) involves the consistently gathering and assessing certification-relevant information about cloud service operations to validate whether they continue to adhere to certification criteria. Previous research has proposed test-based CSC methodologies that directly assess the components of cloud service infrastructures. However, test-based certification requires that certification authorities can access the cloud infrastructure, which various issues may limit. To address these challenges, cloud service providers need to conduct monitoring-based CSC; that is, monitor their cloud service infrastructure to gather certification-relevant data by themselves and then provide these data to certification authorities. Nevertheless, we need to better understand how to design monitoring systems to enable cloud service providers to perform such monitoring. By taking a design science perspective, we derive universal meta-requirements and design guidelines for CSC monitoring systems based on findings from five expert focus group interviews with 33 cloud experts and 10 one-to-one interviews with cloud customers. With this study, we expand the current knowledge base regarding CSC and monitoring-based CSC. Our derived design guidelines contribute to the development of CSC monitoring systems and enable monitoring-based CSC that overcomes issues of prior test-based approaches.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.17705/1cais.04425

Cites

90 of 90 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Effective auditing of AI warrants creating an independent, tamper-resistant audit trail and continuous updating and assessment using continuous auditing procedures.

    “Effective auditing of AI, therefore, does not only warrant creating an independent, tamper-resistant audit trail, but also the continuous updating and assessment of this audit trail using continuous auditing procedures (Lins et al. 2019).”

    From Trustworthy artificial intelligence (2021) · cites this paper as Lins et al. 2019

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lins, S., Schneider, S., Szefer, J., Ibraheem, S., & Ali, A.
Affiliations
  • Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (DE)
  • Yale University (US)
Venue
Communications of the Association for Information Systems
Published
2019
Pages
406-510
ISSN
1529-3181 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2937453880
Cited by
26
References
90
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5
FWCI
4.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Communications of the Association for Information Systems (publishedVersion)
  • Journal of the Association for Information Systems (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cloud Computing and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cloud Data Security Solutions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
Keywords
cloud services, monitoring system, meta-requirements, design guidelines, certificate authority, cloud service providers, cloud infrastructure monitoring, expert interviews

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review