[SystemSafety] Safety and effective or not cybersecurity countermeasures

[Bruce Hunter]

My flu medicine seems to be working so I am clearer in mind to comment…

On 06/06/2019 10:28, Peter Bernard Ladkin wrote:
> For some of your colleagues in WG20, the intended meaning is exactly what
is written

I'll leave further commenting on IEC TR 63069 intent and in fairness I
cannot respond to views of other WG members.

I guess I’m more from the security side but, I don’t wear blue work
clothes, have belt radios and large flashlights and Alsatian dogs and check
fences and locks. I’m also a strong safety advocate on safety and the two
side need to have a conversation. I do “straddle the fence” a bit which can
be uncomfortable both literally and figuratively ;-)

On 07/06/2019 07:42, Peter Bishop wrote:

>I have run across this myself.
> In most cases I see, safety and security assessments are performed
separately.
...
> So at a minimum there needs to be coordination / review between safety
and security assessments to decide what takes priority.

This is my view as well and it's not just a co-engineering aspect. It used
to be a Systems Engineering responsibility to bring disparate specialist
activities together and absence of this discipline in organisations is a
risk in itself. "Parochial" approaches do not work and may continue to
diverge into bad outcomes. My 2009 Paper on "Integrating Safety and
Security into the Systems Lifecycle" was exactly on this. It seems to have
disappeared online archives but I'm happy to send a copy if needed.

This is an important aspect of safety and security and maybe this should be
a separate topic on Systems Engineering and coordination of safety and
other practices?

On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 07:42, Peter Bishop <pgb at adelard.com> wrote:

>
> On 06/06/2019 10:28, Peter Bernard Ladkin wrote:
> > For some of your colleagues in WG20, the intended meaning is exactly
> what is written. They believe
> > that safety evaluations and measures and cybersecurity evaluations and
> measures have - and should
> > continue to have - nothing to do with each other. (They advocate this,
> despite the clear indications
> > in the IEC TR 63069 explanation of threat-risk assessment <security>
> that they are inevitably
> > intertwined.)
>
> I have run across this myself.
>
> In most cases I see, safety and security assessments are performed
> separately.
>
> - to the point where safety assessor cannot even see the security
> recommendations!
>   (need to know and all that)
>
> This can be an issue if security and safety recommendations conflict
> (and this does occur)
>
> So at a minimum there needs to be coordination / review between safety
> and security assessments to decide what takes priority.
>
> Peter Bishop
>
> --
> Peter Bishop
> Chief Scientist
> Adelard LLP
> 24 Waterside, 44-48 Wharf Rd, London N1 7UX
> http://www.adelard.com
> Recep:  +44-(0)20-7832 5850
> Direct: +44-(0)20-7832 5855
>
> Registered office: 5th Floor, Ashford Commercial Quarter, 1 Dover Place,
> Ashford, Kent TN23 1FB
> Registered in England & Wales no. OC 304551. VAT no. 454 489808
>
> This e-mail, and any attachments, is confidential and for the use of
> the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, please
> telephone 020 7832 5850. We do not accept legal responsibility for
> this e-mail or any viruses.
>
> _______________________________________________
> The System Safety Mailing List
> systemsafety at TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE
> Manage your subscription:
> https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/listinfo/systemsafety
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/private/systemsafety/attachments/20190607/883368b7/attachment.html>