Mean Failure Cost as a Measurable Value and Evidence of Cybersecurity: E-Learning Case Study

Addressing Cybersecurity within e-Learning systems becomes empowered to make online information more secure. Certain competences need to be identified as necessary skills to manage security online such the ability to assess sources and architectural components, understanding the privacy, confidentiality and user authentication. Security management approaches quantifying security threats in e-learning are common with other e-services. It is of our need to adopt a quantitative security risk management process in order to determine the worthiest attack and the ignored one, based on financial business risk measure which is the measure of the mean failure cost.This paper proposes a cyber security measure called the Mean Failure Cost MFC suitable for e-Learning systems. It is based on the identification of system's architecture, the well-defined classes of stakeholders, the list of possible threats and vulnerabilities and the specific security requirements related to e-Learning systems and applications. In the mean time, security requirements are considered as appropriate mechanisms for preventing, detecting and recovering security attacks, for this reason an extension of the MFC measure is presented in order to detect the most critical security requirements. Also this paper highlights the security measures and guidelines for controlling e-Learning security policies regarding the most critical security requirements.

[1]  Ali Mili,et al.  Towards quantitative measures of Information Security: A Cloud Computing case study , 2012 .

[2]  Dickson K. W. Chiu,et al.  Enhancing ERP System with RFID: Logistic Process Integration and Exception Handling , 2011, Int. J. Syst. Serv. Oriented Eng..

[3]  Herbert J. Mattord,et al.  Principles of Information Security , 2004 .

[4]  Nancy R. Mead,et al.  Security Requirements Reusability and the SQUARE Methodology , 2010 .

[5]  Yao-Ting Sung,et al.  Evaluating the reliability and impact of a quality assurance system for E-learning courseware , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[6]  Ip-Shing Fan,et al.  Threats analysis for e-learning , 2010 .

[7]  Huseyin Cavusoglu,et al.  Model for Evaluating , 2022 .

[8]  Ali Mili,et al.  Modeling stakeholder/value dependency through mean failure cost , 2010, CSIIRW '10.

[9]  Dowming Yeh,et al.  What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[10]  Antoanela Naaji,et al.  Implementation of an e-learning system. optimization and security-related aspects , 2011 .

[11]  Defta Costinela Luminita Information security in E-learning Platforms , 2011 .

[12]  Daniel J. Ryan,et al.  Expected benefits of information security investments , 2006, Comput. Secur..

[13]  Neila Rjaibi,et al.  Cyber Security Measurement in Depth for E-learning Systems , 2012 .

[14]  Yeong-Seok Seo,et al.  A Comparative Analysis of Reliability Assessment Methods for Web-Based Software , 2013, Int. J. Softw. Innov..

[15]  Borka Jerman-Blazic,et al.  An economic modelling approach to information security risk management , 2008, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[16]  Neila Rjaibi,et al.  Toward a New Model for Assessing Quality Teaching Processes in e-Learning , 2011, CSEDU.

[17]  Tihomir Orehovački,et al.  Determination of optimal security settings for LMS Moodle , 2010 .

[18]  Olimpia Tugui,et al.  TRENDS OF INTEGRATING THE E-LEARNING PLATFORM IN THE GRADUATE AGRONOMIC EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM IN ROMANIA , 2008 .

[19]  Ali Mili,et al.  Quantifying security threats and their potential impacts: a case study , 2010, Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering.

[20]  Uwe Aickelin,et al.  Towards a More Systematic Approach to Secure Systems Design and Analysis , 2013, Int. J. Secur. Softw. Eng..

[21]  Milena M. Head,et al.  Who is Responsible for E-Learning Success in Higher Education? A Stakeholders' Analysis , 2008, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[22]  Hussein Zedan,et al.  Why Moodle , 2008, 2008 12th IEEE International Workshop on Future Trends of Distributed Computing Systems.

[23]  Eric W. T. Ngai,et al.  Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM , 2007, Comput. Educ..

[24]  Ali Mili,et al.  Challenging the Mean Time to Failure: Measuring Dependability as a Mean Failure Cost , 2009 .

[25]  Stefan Fenz,et al.  AURUM: A Framework for Information Security Risk Management , 2009 .

[26]  Ali Mili,et al.  Defining and computing a value based cyber-security measure , 2011 .

[27]  Bruce Schneier,et al.  Beyond fear - thinking sensibly about security in an uncertain world , 2003 .

[28]  N. V. Balasubramanian,et al.  FRAMEWORK AND ARCHITECTURAL STYLE METRICS FOR COMPONENT BASED SOFTWARE ENGINEERING , 2008 .

[29]  Zuhoor A. Al-Khanjari,et al.  An Extended E-Learning Architecture: Integrating Software Tools Within The E-Learning Portal , 2006, Int. Arab J. Inf. Technol..

[30]  M. Machado,et al.  Blackboard vs. moodle: Comparing user experience of learning management systems , 2007, 2007 37th Annual Frontiers In Education Conference - Global Engineering: Knowledge Without Borders, Opportunities Without Passports.

[31]  Ali Mili,et al.  An economic model of security threats for cloud computing systems , 2012, Proceedings Title: 2012 International Conference on Cyber Security, Cyber Warfare and Digital Forensic (CyberSec).

[32]  Maria Nickolova,et al.  THREAT MODEL FOR USER SECURITY IN E-LEARNING SYSTEMS , 2007 .

[33]  Ali Mili,et al.  A cybersecurity model in cloud computing environments , 2013, J. King Saud Univ. Comput. Inf. Sci..