Vulnerability analysis frequency

A challenge for security vulnerability analysis is that the accurate prediction of the frequency and location of terrorist acts is not considered credible. As such, the analyst has a choice of assuming a frequency of a certain attack or assuming the attack frequency is 1, thereby focusing solely on the conditional likelihood of success of the adversary who attempts an attack. While the latter approach provides a baseline for making decisions about vulnerability, it does not fully... 

In order to carry out a risk analysis study, the Company of Enviromnent Technology (CETESB, in Portuguese) of the Sao Paulo State Govermnent, Brazil, adopts a procedure constituted for six steps (CETESB, 2003) (i) characterization of the enterprise and the region (ii) hazard identification and estabUshment of accidental hypothesis (iii) estimation of physical effects and vulnerability analysis (iv) estimation of frequencies (v) risk estimation and assessment and (vi) risk management. 

SESSION II Risk Theory and Risk Analysis for Landslides. [1] Landslide Risk Management concepts and framework and examples (2.5 h) [2] Deterministic and Probabilistic models for slope stability evaluation (2 h) [3] Introduction to modelling of catastrophic landslide events (2 h) [4] Empirical models for travel distance (1.5 h) [5] Application examples of probabilistic methods and semi quantitative methods for landslide hazard zonation (2h) [6] Landslide Frequency Assessment (1.5 h) [7] Different components of vulnerability to landslides. Prevention and long term management of landslides (3.5 h) [8] Case Studies coal waste dump risk assessment, example from motorway in La Reunion Island, Aknes Rock slope in Norway (2 h) [9] Application of QRA to other geotechnical problems Internal erosion of dams, crater lake hazard (1.5 h) [10] Advanced numerical models initiation of landslides, propagation of sediments/climate change effects (3.5 h). 

FMVEA extends this approach with a security analysis. Components are not only examined for failure modes, but also for threat modes. While a failure mode describes how a system quality attribute [10] fads, a threat mode describes how a security attribute of the components fails. It is the maimer by which a occurred threat is observed. Causes for failing security attributes are vulnerabilities. In order to estimate the frequency of threat modes, potential attackers (threat agents) are identified. The probability of a threat mode is determined based on the threat agent and the vulnerability. The results of a FMVEA are the failure and threat modes of a system, and their causes and consequences. In addition, failure and threat modes are evaluated in terms of probability and severity. We refer the reader to [3] for a more detailed description of FMVEA. 

Nowadays, there is an increasing interest in system protection against intentional threats of physical nature [8,19]. On those regards, model-based vulnerability assessment is a crucial phase in the risk analysis of critical infrastructures. In fact, typical risk models include the computation of three logically sequential factors probability or frequency of threats (P) probability that threats are successful in their intent (i.e., vulnerability, V) consequences of successful threats (i.e., expected damage, D). Therefore, in order to evaluate infrastructure risks (R), it is essential to be able to compute the vulnerability of the system with respect to the threats [11]. One of the most widespread and intuitive model for the evaluation of the risk is [21] R = P V D. This model is based on a quantitative notion of vulnerability, different from other definitions also commonly used,... 

---