Integrating Attack Tree Classification into Defensive

Software Development: A Proactive Approach to

Cybersecurity
Dr A.V Sriharsha1, a), Golla Jyothi2, b), Sitari Deepthi3, c), Sake Abhinaya4, d),
Kanthreegala Lakshmi Narasimha5, e)
1
Professor, Dept. of Data Science
Mohan Babu University Erstwhile Sree Vidyanikethan Engineering College, Tirupathi, India
2,3,4,5
Student, Dept. of CSSE, Sree Vidyanikethan engineering College, Tirupathi, India.

a)
[email protected], b) [email protected], c) [email protected] d) [email protected], e)
[email protected],

ABSTRACT

Organizations in the modern world are constantly prone to different forms of cyber threats which threaten the
security of their software systems. This paper presents a new framework that incorporates – attack tree classification
to improve software defensive development processes. Outlined attack trees are hierarchical representations of
attacks that assist in identifying the weaknesses in a software system by analyzing its different attack vectors. We
further propose to combine the attack tree analysis with the Agile Development Life Cycle so that security controls
are a primary focus of the development not the last thing added. Empirical assessments as carried out on different
software projects show noticeable improvements in resource allocation alongside risk mitigation. The results
showed a decrease in the number of vulnerabilities and an improved overall security level of the developed software.
This research presents useful approaches and practices for adoption of the attack tree classification systems during
the software engineering processes. Our study focuses on the protection needs of software growing rapidly and
continuously changing in its development-oriented business environment.

KEYWORDS
Attack Trees, Defensive Software Development, Cybersecurity, Vulnerability Assessment, Risk Mitigation,
Software Engineering.

INTRODUCTION

The ongoing rapid development of digital technologies has improved the software development process. Although
systems have become more embedded within essential business processes, they have also become targets for cyber
threats. As more operational functions incorporate the use of software, risks related to cyberattacks, data leakage or
breach, and system compromise have also gone up considerably for businesses. Cybersecurity deficits can lead to
financial, legal, and even reputational loss thereby necessitating the adoption of adequate countermeasures. It has
been predicted that the overall costs inflicted by cybercrime will exceed $10 trillion within just three years already,
hence the importance of security in the course of software development is indisputable.

One such approach that has a great potential in enhancing the security of software applications is attack trees. It was
first defined by Bruce Schneier at height of his career in software security, back in the year 1999. Attack trees
provide clear and systematic models of attacks, showing on different levels both possible attacks and the weak spots
in the system under consideration. In these scenarios, the trees are useful for security experts and designers
analyzing the system, as they provide ways to see possible weaknesses and threats and help to organize the defenses
in a sound order. Due to the obvious demonstration of threats and weaknesses, attack trees are applicable for use in
any situation when software is being created. In such cases, they are aimed at predicting possible risks before they
actually occur and help in planning the rational distribution of resources for protection, so saving possible losses in
advance.

Still, a number of classical software development models consider security as a secondary matter often suffocated at
the final stages of development. Such a defensive position often leads to a myriad of security loopholes which could
otherwise be resolved. Textbook defenses in systems such as classification of attack trees help to counter the above
challenge, where security concerns are introduced even before the system is developed. The research introduces a
framework on how attack tree classification can be incorporated in the software development lifecycle to promote
proactive prevention of potential security threats.

As a result of this strategy, it is possible for the organizations to re-organize their development processes in a
manner that will be security-first therefore enabling them to tackle the threats in a planned way and decreasing the
chances of exploitation as a whole. Furthermore, frameworks of this nature are quite suitable for agile projects as
they allow constant monitoring of security concerns without hindering the iterative development processes. In the
next sections, relevant publications will be analyzed, the process of incorporation of attack trees into the
development will be described, and the practical verification of the proposed solution for the improvement of
software security will be presented.

The objective of this study is to develop an exhaustive scheme for incorporation of attack resolution techniques into
the software design practices. By adopting this perspective, organizations will be able to safeguard their software
from the constantly evolving threats more effectively, ensuring that security is a continuous process during the
course of software development.

RELATED WORK

In today’s world, the software development lifecycle management includes the security aspects for the benefit of the
organizations, which is attached to the reason that the organizations seek for the safety of their assets. With
increasing number of complexities in cyber attacks, different techniques have been created to solve the problems
related to security in the different levels of software development lifecycle (SDLC). This part analyses fundamental
aspects of attack trees and explores important academic papers that underlie the framework, which will be discussed
in detail in the next section.

Attack trees form one of the basic tools used in security risk assessment as they provide a tree that can encapsulate
the different ways that threats can be directed to a system. In an attack tree, each vector represents an attack vector,
and the root node indicates the objective that an attacker wants to achieve, such as accessing a system or obtaining
confidential information. The origin of the notion of an attack tree lies with Bruce Scheier (1999), who first
introduced these trees to explain the hierarchy of threats. Their usage allows security analysts to address and
partition the problem into simpler problems of finding sufficient resources for each layer in the wall and forces any
two attack shrubs and trees in proximity to one another.

Every software projects incorporates risk management since it helps organizations plan and control activities that
might pose a risk to information security. According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology NIST, a
holistic view of risk management includes the understanding of the mode of operating and the implications of
operating such a mode. Risk assessment including attack trees facilitates the developers in recognizing the risks and
the threats more appropriately enabling them to manage the resources better

Given the current environment where cyber threats are on the increase and evolving in their complexity, the
significance of security measures and practices taken in advance of a problem is greatly heightened. When talking
about proactive security, it means that every stage of the system development life cycle is taken into consideration
with security issues being addressed even before the last phase of the whole process. In early, it was mentioned by
McGraw (2006) that this is the only approach that is helpful in determining possible risks early on and contains them
without exception and importantly paving way and creating an atmosphere of security mentorship in the
development teams. This shift is necessary because with the changing nature of the threats, we have to move from
simply protecting to building very secure software systems. In this movement, for example, the methodology of
attack trees aids in continuous assessment and enhances security during all phases of the systems development life
cycle.

PROPOSED FRAMEWORK

This paper proposes a new approach that aims at incorporating attack tree taxonomy in the software development
lifecycle (SDLC) in order to enhance defensive software engineering. Located at the crux of the proposed
framework are five interdependent phases: the THREAT IDENTIFICATION, ATTACK TREE development, RISK
ANALYSIS, DEFENSE PLANNING, and the ADAPTIVE MONITORING AND RESPONSE. These phases have
been designed to enable the integration of security concerns in all stages of software development.

The starting step is knowing what are the possible attacks that could be posed to this software system. This can be
achieved by gathering sufficient knowledge on the system’s blueprint, possible attackers and their possible
weaknesses. In other words, those who adhere to modeling threats, conduct activities like this with all stakeholders,
technical or security, or else within reason. A good picture of possible threats is then created. This helps capture
diverse views ensuring enough threats are surfaced at the early stages.

Thorough assessment of the threat concludes with the construction of an attack tree. Each attack tree is started with a
root node that is a generic threatening event, for example, a data breach or unapproved access. From this point,
branches are drawn to denote certain types of attack, such as direct ones, social engineering, or insiders. Such
structured framework makes it easy for a developer to know the potential attack pathways. Each node is further
evaluated for known vulnerabilities giving the developer a wider perspective of the system's security posture.

Fig.1 : A Graphical Model of Attack Tree

The development team evaluates attack trees based on probability of successful execution and system impact. They
use a risk matrix to rate each attack vector as Low, Medium, or High risk. This helps focus resources on critical
threats, maximizing security efforts. Next, risk mitigation measures are designed, including code reviews, security
tests, and encryption. These measures are implemented into the software production cycle to prevent vulnerabilities
from reaching the output stage.

The last step underscores the significance of improvement and monitoring of security measures on a real time basis.
In light of the ever dynamic cyber warfare landscape, the updated attack trees should be regularly revisited and
updated as fresh vulnerabilities surface or the existing ones change due to system changes. This phase covers Also
the closed cycles of development where the improvements can be done basing on the occurrence of problems in
developing security features in some earlier systems. It is also necessary to guarantee that security becomes an
integral component in the entire software lifespan through constant training of development teams on the prevalent
security threats and the recommended pactical approaches.

The integration of attack trees into Agile processes raises concerns about scalability for large and complicated
systems. The framework emphasizes the importance of using attack trees for protective software design, but the
application in complex systems is not considered. The framework includes provisions for continuous assessment,
flexible defense strategy formulation, and reallocation of attack trees. However, further research could extend this
approach to efficient use, reducing excess branches for larger systems.

Automated Attack Tree Generation uses machine learning models to generate and revise attack trees based on
system modifications and identified vulnerabilities. This reduces manual work and improves system evaluation.
Attack Tree Pruning removes unnecessary branches, focusing on essential processes and high-violent threats.
Hierarchical Attack Trees break systems into smaller modules, allowing for easier threat modeling and analysis.
Reusability of attack tree patterns reduces time and resources for larger projects. Risk Thresholds and Managed
Defense determine a manageable level of risk, focusing on critical threats. Continuous risk assessment capability
embeds in the automated system. Incremental risk analysis stages the attack surface within each Agile sprint,
prioritizing efforts to protect critical areas.

The integration of Continuous Integration and Continuous Delivery (CI/CD) with technology and security
considerations can enhance the security of complex systems. Attack tree node-based automated security tests can be
performed for every build and deployment cycle, ensuring bugs are identified early and corrections are incorporated
within the development cycle. Visual management tools can provide detailed maps of threats, allowing team
members to adapt to changes and threats without breaking down. Communication and social media tools can aid in
creating, editing, and updating attack trees, while security champions in agile teams ensure securitization processes
and deployment of attack trees.

MATHEMATICAL MODEL

In order to enhance the existing model, the Authors suggest including a quantitative method that would offer a clear
picture of the risks incurred by employing different Attack Path(s) retrieved through the Attack Tree(s)
classification. This subsection also allows for the risk assessment through a mathematical model based on the
decision making in the design of defensive software using probability and statistical approaches.

First, let us clarify the definitions of the variables:

 T is the set comprising all the threats that have been identified and are pertinent to the software system in
question.
 Ai refers to a particular attack vector present in the attack tree.
 P(Ai) corresponds to the possibility that attack vector Ai is implemented successfully.
  I(Ai) is
a measure of the impact of attack vector Ai on a scale, from 1 to
10, where minimal impact is graded 1 and total devastation is
expressed as 10.

Using the equation below, each attack vector has an associated risk determined.

R(Ai)=P (Ai) ×I (Ai)

Where:

 R (Ai) denotes the risk associated with attack vector Ai.

 P(Ai) is determined through an analysis of past records, experts’ predictions and available threat feeds. For
example, if in history, the particular assault has been 20% likely to succeed based on attacks carried out in
the past, the value of P (Ai )=0.2.
 I (Ai) pertains to the possible impact of a successful attack especially in terms of loss of data, business
suspension, and fines owed to the government.

In order to get a global risk for the software system, we collect risks for all attack vectors that have been identified:

n n
Rtotal=∑ R ( Ai )=∑ P ( Ai ) × I ( Ai )
i=1 i=1

In this equation, n denotes the number of attack vectors implemented. The resulting cumulative value of this risk
calls for a complete quantifiable assessment of the state of software security within the context such that the teams
will only concentrate on risks that are seen as very high levels.

It is possible for organizations

As a means of assisting in decision making, organizations have the opportunity to set risk thresholds. In a situation
where the total risk value Rtotal exceeds a previously specified threshold Tthreshold , prompt measures must be
taken to deal with the highest priority attack vectors. For instance, one can consider the case of Tthreshold =5 and
any attack vector that has a risk score exceeding the set threshold will evoke the need for remediation activities
aimed at the attack vector.

There are also statistical instruments as part of the framework that enable the ongoing surveillance and modification
of risk estimates. With the advent of modern forms of threat intelligence, the attack vectors can be probabilistically
re-estimated using Bayesian methods. The Bayesian statistical method has the following formulation.

P ( D ∣ A i)× p ( A i)
P(Ai ∣D)=
P ( D)

Where:

 P(Ai ∣D) is the modified probability of the attack vector post-inclusion of new data D.
 P(D∣Ai) refers to the conditional probability of the new data given the occurrence of attack vector A i .
 P(D) is the marginal probability of the new data over the entire set of attack vectors.
Such a dynamic approach provides the possibility of continuous enhancement of the risk assessment model giving
confidence that the system will counteract the new threats that may arise in the course of development defensive
software.

EXPECTED RESULTS

We expect to enhance the enhancement of application security throughout the software development lifecycle by
significantly improving the identification of vulnerabilities by means of attack trees. It is thanks to the hierarchical
representation of attack trees that all possible attack angles can be revisited and noteworthily, weaknesses that may
be overlooked by the conventional methods can be found.

Given its use of mathematical models for risk evaluation, the framework allows more clarity regarding the risks
which the particular software is dealing with. Risk limitations are expressed in regard to each of the attack vectors
available in the system making its easier for the development teams to concentrate on the relevant attack vectors.

The framework is expected to encourage the development teams to be more security aware. As development
processes become more secure, the teams will appreciate the principles of security and the need to protect software
systems from the very early stages of development.

This framework is to ensure that the frequency and effect of security breaches after deployment are as low as
possible. By In the early stages of development, firms will complete less deals because such compromises elicit less
expenditure in forms of blaming security hardening measures.

DISCUSSIONS

The predicted results assume a paradigm shift in the way in which organizations view software security. The
majority of the cases, those factors are considered towards the end of the development cycle so that corrective and
expensive measures, if at all effective, are taken. The proposed framework addresses this problem by integrating
security in every step of the software development life cycle.

Furthermore, the effectiveness of attack tree analysis may help to implement it in more organizations. Its place in the
developmental process makes it a viable model for sectors that would like to improve their security. In addition, the
study may address in more detail issues of securing agile development that are present in the existing literature.
Namely, it will show how security evaluation practices can be inserted into the process of development iterations
without compromising the level of agility.
 Fig. 2. Samples of Dynamic Attack Trees generated from the Data Source

The creation of the attack classification tree has employed information from the Cyber Attacks dataset available on
Kaggle. [https://www.kaggle.com/code/sreeharshaav/cyber-attack-eda-and-model-train/edit].

Comparisons with Existing Methodologies

Security strategies and plans are often based on rigid checklist approaches, which, while instilling some confidence,
only scratch the surface of what system security looks like. On the other hand, due to their clear hierarchy, attack
trees are simple enough to enable modelling of even the most complex forms of threats that do not have to adhere to
any standard limit.

A lot of the available security structures use quantitative methods of risk assessment which are inherently subjective
and differ from one organization to the other. And the mathematical part of the proposed framework which deals
with risk quantification is an improvement on this challenge as it provides concrete ways of dealing with risks even
in the making of decisions of security optimal resource allocation which is usually subjective.

Traditional approaches to the security of systems still face the problem of how security can be incorporated in the
context of agile software development. While the proposed framework retains adaptive solutions for systems
development methodology, it precludes continuous assessment of security risks and makes provision for constant
security incorporation thus bridging the weakness in many available security solutions that entail fixed development
cycles.

In this regard, attack trees can be positioned as adding practical, real-time threat detection mechanism, which can
foster and improve the risk management processes established by other frameworks such as the one by NIST and
ISO. They bring detailed identification of vulnerabilities into the façade of program development, addressing the
shortcomings left by formal gestural standards.

There are, however, additional complexities which defense-in-depth is not able to handle but which attack trees can.
This additional complexity lends itself to the proposed framework which advocates application of a layered defence
approach to complex adaptive systems from anticipated threats as they are composed of dynamic and sophisticated
adaptive threats.
DevSecOps can also leverage attack trees by assisting in identifying threats methodically before and after the tests
are executed. This enhances the security evaluation process by bringing together static analysis (vulnerabilities in
the code) and dynamic analysis which in this case is threat modelling.

The framework addresses that through the use of STRIDE to understand the various categories of threats however
on a wider cutting edge, attack trees do threat modeling with pathways of the attacks and the chances of each attack
being successful. Due to this reason, attack trees are more appropriate for institutions which deal with intricate
software systems requiring detailed threat portrayal.

The attack tree architecture in the present design extends a mathematical risk structure which especially illuminates
the objectiveness in risk management. The approach promotes continuous risk evaluation of the system using up-to-
date information, which is most especially crucial for complex systems such as RDBMS where a lot of evaluative
information often depends on the judgment of individual appraisers.

CONCLUSION

The current research emphasizes the necessity of security consideration in every stage of the software development
life cycle by the employment of attack trees. The systematic study of threats and vulnerabilities can allow
organizations to embrace a security posture that is anticipatory thereby safeguarding against cyber threats. This
framework makes contribution to the improvement of risk management by use of quantitative models in addition to
vulnerability identification. In addition, this framework encourages development teams to be security optimist and to
keep watching for threats on an endless basis. The findings of the present research milieu show that there is no limit
to the risk of security in agile development processes, which is a prerequisite of contemporary software engineering.
Considering security risks, the framework is coherent and flexible than traditional approaches. Coding approaches
with respect to software security risks are become even more fundamental due to the sophistication in the cyber
threats. Lastly, this study provides a useful contribution to the discipline of software security and offers a workable
model for organizations seeking to protect their ICT networks.

REFERENCES
[1] Shuaiqi Yuan, Ming Yang, Genserik Reniers, “Integrated process safety and process security risk assessment of
industrial cyber-physical systems in chemical plants”, Computers in Industry, Volume 155, 2024, ISSN 0166-3615,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2023.104056.

[2] Bouke, Mohamed Aly, Azizol Abdullah, Sameer Hamoud ALshatebi, Mohd Taufik Abdullah, and Hayate El
Atigh. "An intelligent DDoS attack detection tree-based model using Gini index feature selection method."
Microprocessors and Microsystems 98 (2023): 104823.

[3] Bouke, Copae, Danut-Valentin. "Attack-Defense Trees with Offensive and Defensive Attributes." Master's
thesis, University of Twente, 2024.

[4] Altulaihan, E.; Almaiah, M.A.; Aljughaiman, A. Anomaly Detection IDS for Detecting DoS Attacks in IoT
Networks Based on Machine Learning Algorithms. Sensors 2024, 24, 713. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24020713

[5] Agrawal, Garima, Amardeep Kaur, and Sowmya Myneni. "A review of generative models in generating
synthetic attack data for cybersecurity." Electronics 13.2 (2024): 322..

[6] Paya, Antonio, et al. "Apollon: a robust defense system against adversarial machine learning attacks in intrusion
detection systems." Computers & Security 136 (2024): 103546.

[7] Zhukabayeva, Tamara, et al. "A traffic analysis and node categorizationaware machine learning-integrated
framework for cybersecurity intrusion detection and prevention of WSNs in smart grids." IEEE Access (2024).
[8] Alzaidy, Sharoug, and Hamad Binsalleeh. "Adversarial Attacks with Defense Mechanisms on Convolutional
Neural Networks and Recurrent Neural Networks for Malware Classification." Applied Sciences 14.4 (2024): 1673.

[9] Khan, Shafiullah, Muhammad Altaf Khan, and Noha Alnazzawi. "Artificial neural network-based mechanism to
detect security threats in wireless sensor networks." Sensors 24.5 (2024): 1641.

[10] Coscia, Antonio, et al. "Automatic decision tree-based nidps ruleset generation for dos/ddos attacks." Journal
of Information Security and Applications 82 (2024): 103736.
[11] Konsta, Alyzia-Maria, et al. "Survey: automatic generation of attack trees and attack graphs." Computers &
Security 137 (2024): 103602.

[12] Bryans, Jeremy, et al. "Formal Template-Based Generation of Attack–Defence Trees for Automated Security
Analysis." information 14.9 (2023): 481.

[13] Khan, Ahmed Nawaz, et al. "Integrated Attack Tree in Residual Risk Management Framework." Information
14.12 (2023): 639..
[14] Balhareth, Ghaida, and Mohammad Ilyas. "Optimized Intrusion Detection for IoMT Networks with Tree-
Based Machine Learning and Filter-Based Feature Selection." Sensors 24.17 (2024): 5712.

[15] Seid, Elias, Oliver Popov, and Fredrik Blix. "Security Attack Behavioural Pattern Analysis for Critical Service
Providers." Journal of Cybersecurity and Privacy 4.1 (2024): 55-75.