Argumentation for security
: a comparative study

  • Stéfanie François

    Student thesis: Master typesMaster in Computer science

    Abstract

    Argumentation is primarily a field of study and a philosophical discipline which has been widely taught for centuries. This discipline allows for the development and improvement of students’ critical thinking. It has also been studied in law schools as a part of training of future lawyers in defence of their client, especially in preparation and development of the most decisive arguments in favour of the latter. Many software packages have been developed to enable users to practice visual argumentation and to create his or her own argument maps.
    In this thesis, we have attempted to reconcile these software tools, designed to create visual arguments, with the field of computer security. This thesis explores the possibility of creating an argument map of security requirements using visualization argument software tools. More specifically, this thesis presents a comprehensive assessment of five different tools; Araucaria, ArguMed, Argumentative, Athena and Rationale, all designed to create visual argument maps. The presented assessment was based on a design of the "security requirement" argument and explores, for each tool, five different perspectives: the user interface, available features, the documentation and error handling, the notations used to represent the argument and the argumentation ontology underlying each tool. Finally, a discussion interprets the results and the relevance of these tools in the field of security requirements.
    Date of Award2010
    Original languageEnglish
    Awarding Institution
    • University of Namur
    SupervisorPIERRE-YVES SCHOBBENS (Supervisor)

    Keywords

    • argumentation theory
    • security requirements
    • CSAV
    • argument creation
    • argument visualization
    • araucaria
    • Athena
    • ArguMed
    • argumentative
    • rationale

    Cite this

    '