Cited by 220Information and Cyber SecurityMulti-Criteria Decision MakingAdvanced Decision-Making Techniques

An Information Systems Security Risk Assessment Model Under the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Belief Functions

Open access
SUN, LILI, SRIVASTAVA, RAJENDRA P., MOCK, THEODORE J.·2006·Journal of Management Information Systems

Abstract

This study develops an alternative methodology for the risk analysis of information systems security (ISS), an evidential reasoning approach under the Dempster-Shafer theory of belief functions. The approach has the following important dimensions. First, the evidential reasoning approach provides a rigorous, structured manner to incorporate relevant ISS risk factors, related countermeasures, and their interrelationships when estimating ISS risk. Second, the methodology employs the belief function definition of risk--that is, ISS risk is the plausibility of ISS failures. The proposed approach has other appealing features, such as facilitating cost- benefit analyses to help promote efficient ISS risk management. The paper elaborates the theoretical concepts and provides operational guidance for implementing the method. The method is illustrated using a hypothetical example from the perspective of management and a real-world example from the perspective of external assurance providers. Sensitivity analyses are performed to evaluate the impact of important parameters on the model's results.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2753/mis0742-1222220405

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Srivastava, Rajendra. (2006) An Information Systems Security Risk Assessment Model under Dempster-Shafer Theory of Belief Functions. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22 (4), 109-142. Publisher's Official Version: <http://www.jmis-web.org/>. Open Access Version: <http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/>.
  2. Cutter Consortium. Exactly what is risk management? Cutter Consortium Press Room. June 6, 2002. Accessed on November 3, 2005 at http://www.cutter.com/press/020606.html
  3. Srivastava, Rajendra. (2006) An Information Systems Security Risk Assessment Model under Dempster-Shafer Theory of Belief Functions. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22 (4), 109-142. Publisher's Official Version: <http://www.jmis-web.org/>. Open Access Version: <http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/>.
  4. Hammond, R. Improving productivity through risk management. In, Umbaugh, R.F., (ed.), Handbook of MIS Management, 2 nd ed. Boston: Auerbach, 1988, 655-665.
  5. Srivastava, Rajendra. (2006) An Information Systems Security Risk Assessment Model under Dempster-Shafer Theory of Belief Functions. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22 (4), 109-142. Publisher's Official Version: <http://www.jmis-web.org/>. Open Access Version: <http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/>.
  6. Krishnamoorthy, G. Discussion of aggregation of evidence in auditing: a likelihood perspective. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 12 (supplement 1993), 161-164.
  7. Pacelle, M. MasterCard reports security breach. The Wall Street Journal, (June 2005).
  8. Palacharla, P.; and Nelson, P. C. Evidential Reasoning in Uncertainty for Data Fusion Pro- ceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems. Paris, France, July 1994, 715-720.
  9. Perschke, G. A.; Karabin, S. J., and Brock, T. L. Four steps to information security. Journal of Accountancy (1986), 104-111.
  10. Srivastava, Rajendra. (2006) An Information Systems Security Risk Assessment Model under Dempster-Shafer Theory of Belief Functions. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22 (4), 109-142. Publisher's Official Version: <http://www.jmis-web.org/>. Open Access Version: <http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/>.
  11. _______, Shenoy, P. P., and Srivastava, R. P. AUDITOR'S ASSISTANT: A knowledge engineering tool for audit decisions. In, Proceedings of the 1988 Touche Ross/University of Kansas Symposium on Auditing Problems, May 1988, 61-79.
  12. _______, and Mock, T. Why we should consider belief functions in auditing research and practice. The Auditor's Report, 28, 2 (2005), 58-65.
  13. Srivastava, Rajendra. (2006) An Information Systems Security Risk Assessment Model under Dempster-Shafer Theory of Belief Functions. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22 (4), 109-142. Publisher's Official Version: <http://www.jmis-web.org/>. Open Access Version: <http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/>.
  14. Strat, T. M. Decision analysis using belief functions. In, Yager, R. R.; Fedrizzi, M.; and Kacprzyk, J, (eds.), Advances in the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence, New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1994.
  15. Yuan, L. Companies face system attacks from inside, too. The Wall Street Journal Online, June 2005.
  16. Srivastava, Rajendra. (2006) An Information Systems Security Risk Assessment Model under Dempster-Shafer Theory of Belief Functions. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22 (4), 109-142. Publisher's Official Version: <http://www.jmis-web.org/>. Open Access Version: <http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/>.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
SUN, L., SRIVASTAVA, R. P., & MOCK, T. J.
Affiliations
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • University of Kansas (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Venue
Journal of Management Information Systems
Published
2006-04
Volume
22
Issue
4
Pages
109-142
ISSN
  • 0742-1222 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-928X
OpenAlex
W2144958981
Cited by
220
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 16
FWCI
30.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Journal of Management Information Systems (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion)
  • KU ScholarWorks (The University of Kansas) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Multi-Criteria Decision Making
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Advanced Decision-Making Techniques
Keywords
information systems security, risk assessment, Dempster-Shafer theory, belief functions, evidential reasoning, risk management, security countermeasures, cost-benefit analysis, external assurance, sensitivity analysis

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