Security Engineering in Cyber-Physical Systems: A Systematic Review of

Methodological Approaches

Elias Seid, Oliver Popov and Fredrik Blix

Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University, Sweden

Keywords:

Cyber-Physical Systems Security, Cybersecurity Frameworks, Security Model, Quantitative Research,

Qualitative Research, Cyber-Physical System, Security Engineering, Threat Modeling, Cyber Risk.

Abstract:

Ensuring strong security in Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) is increasingly essential as these systems become

integral to contemporary industrial and societal infrastructures. The increasing prevalence of security risks

requires the advancement of conventional security engineering approaches to tackle the distinct problems

presented by CPS. This study offers a thorough assessment of the research methodologies, approaches, and

strategies used in security engineering for cyber-physical systems over the last ﬁfteen years. The review

analyses the design and execution of security solutions, including empirical and conceptual investigations,

along with the integration and enhancement of existing methodologies. This study seeks to offer a systematic

overview of contemporary developments and pinpoint methodological concerns essential for future research

in adaptive and security engineering -driven for CPS through an analysis of diverse literature. This study

enhances the current discussion by providing a thorough analysis of the research environment, demonstrating

the requirement for new and contextually relevant security engineering methodologies.

1 INTRODUCTION

Over the past decade, various sectors within soci-

ety have experienced a rapid process of digitalization.

One signiﬁcant trend involves the migration of crucial

information resources and organisational procedures

from physical to digital platforms. The implemen-

tation of novel sociotechnical solutions has brought

about numerous advantages by signiﬁcantly enhanc-

ing operational efﬁciency in both corporate and gov-

ernmental organisations, thereby altering the land-

scape of information and process management. How-

ever, it has also presented novel challenges. The

growing dependence on systems and networks has re-

sulted in heightened susceptibility of critical service

providers, such as government agencies and health-

care organisations, to incidents that impact their oper-

ations (Urbach and Röglinger et al., 2019).

Cybersecurity incidents that impact the cyberin-

frastructure, encompassing the network and system

resources of signiﬁcant service providers, have the

potential to signiﬁcantly disrupt crucial digital oper-

ations. Consequently, this disruption indirectly ham-

pers the organization’s capacity to effectively deliver

services to its stakeholders. In addition to the general

public, various other organisations are also involved.

This prompts inquiries into the extent to which cyber-

attacks can inﬂict damage on organisational systems

and networks, as well as indirectly impacting organi-

sational functions and society as whole

1.1 Cyber-Physical Systems

The ﬁeld of Industrial Automation and Control Sys-

tems (IACS) has received greater focus in research

than when considered within the broader framework

of information and communication technology (ICT).

Originally, a ﬁrewall was employed to counteract any

potential threat directed towards the central compo-

nent of the system (Urbach and Röglinger et al.,

2018). The internet of things has signiﬁcantly dis-

rupted the infrastructure of the Industrial automation

and control system, leading to substantial changes in

various areas such as electrical management systems

and manufacturing. The concept of IACS has been re-

searched in the ﬁeld of cyber-physical systems. They

were given the name "cyber-physical systems" when

they were incorporated into industries such as man-

ufacturing and energy management systems, where

they solely perform operational tasks. Following the

advent of the internet of things in 1999, it has become

commonplace to use this technology in a wide range

of business and industrial environments.

https://www.enisa.europa.eu/publications/enisa-

threat-landscape-2022

822

Seid, E., Popov, O. and Blix, F.

Security Engineering in Cyber-Physical Systems: A Systematic Review of Methodological Approaches.

DOI: 10.5220/0013478100003928

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering (ENASE 2025), pages 822-834

ISBN: 978-989-758-742-9; ISSN: 2184-4895

Several deﬁnitions of cyber-physical systems

(CPS) have been explored in the literature (Boyes et

al., 2018), (Griffor et al., 2017), (Henzinger et al.,

2008), (Baheti et al., 2011), and (Poovendran, R. et

al., 2010). Nevertheless, (Urbach and Röglinger et al.,

2018) has concisely synthesised and integrated all the

ideas discussed in the literature related to CPS, estab-

lishing a shared foundation. Cyber-Physical System

(CPS), is a system that consists of a collection of in-

terconnected physical and digital components, which

can be either centralised or decentralised. This deﬁni-

tion comprises three key elements: sensing, computa-

tion, and networking, which are crucial for addressing

real-world challenges through the utilisation of physi-

cal processes. The Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT)

expands upon the principles and deﬁnitions employed

in CPS. It refers to intelligent interconnected assets or

objects that form a component of a larger system or a

network of systems, constituting the intelligent man-

ufacturing enterprise (Shaﬁ, Q et al., 2012).

The Internet of Things (IoT) is a speciﬁc form

of CPS. The complexity of IoT becomes particu-

larly apparent when implemented in an industrial set-

ting, where a multitude of technological advance-

ments, such as processing, communication, manufac-

turing, and sensing devices, are used, often incorpo-

rating elements of Artiﬁcial Intelligence. The various

opportunities presented by the Industrial Internet of

Things (IIoT) are also exploited by malefactors or cy-

ber criminals, thereby making security a prominent

deterrent to the widespread adoption of Industry 4.0.

The convergence of Information and communication

technology (ICT) with Operational Technology (OT)

has intensiﬁed the difﬁculties, particularly due to the

contrasting nature of changes in ICT and OT. ICT is

characterised by its dynamic and aggressive nature,

while OT is slower and often more expensive to inno-

vate (Awotunde, J et al., 2023).

The Objective of the Study. The study aims to

achieve two primary objectives. First, it seeks to

conduct a comprehensive literature review spanning

approximately ﬁfteen years, focusing on key issues

and aspects related to Security Engineering for CPS.

This review will critically evaluate existing research

methodologies within the ﬁeld. Additionally, the

study aims to identify gaps in the literature and pro-

pose enhancements to speciﬁc algorithms and proce-

dures that, while proven effective in traditional se-

curity contexts, have yet to be explored in the CPS

domain. The overarching goal of this review is to

systematically identify and analyze the research ap-

proaches, methodologies, and strategies employed in

selected publications addressing security engineering

for CPS.

Moreover, this study conducted a systematic liter-

ature review by analysing existing approaches, meth-

ods, and frameworks based on selected papers. The

review was performed using automated search tech-

niques on relevant academic databases. The ﬁnd-

ings of this review will be discussed in the follow-

ing section. This literature review examined schol-

arly papers that primarily focused on formalisations,

meta-studies, and various topics such as Security, cy-

bersecurity, and Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT).

Model-driven security has been widely used in the

domains of software adaption, security, legal compli-

ance, and business intelligence. The unit of analysis

for this study is the methods and research strategies

employed in the selected papers.

To select papers for this study, we relied on rep-

utable sources, including Google Scholar, Web of Sci-

ence, and Scopus. Among these, Scopus was particu-

larly emphasized due to its extensive coverage of ma-

jor publishers in the Software Engineering domain,

such as ACM, Springer, and IEEE. Scopus provides

a notable advantage in terms of inclusiveness, sur-

passing the coverage of Web of Science, although it

is more focused in scope. Google Scholar, on the

other hand, encompasses a broader range of materi-

als, including non-peer-reviewed works like technical

papers, which can provide additional insights into the

domain of CPS.

The primary objective of this review process is

to identify the research approaches, methodologies,

and strategies employed in the selected publications

that address security engineering within CPS. A to-

tal of 86 articles were reviewed from the total of

240 papers obtained from the search results. The

reviewed articles analysed Security engineering for

Cyber-Physical Systems, with a particular emphasis

on innovative proposals, formalisation, meta-studies,

implementation, integration/transformation, evalua-

tion, and case studies. This preliminary stage in-

volves using various search terms to evaluate relevant

research articles from selected databases, including

Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Sciences. It is

necessary to assess the appropriateness of these terms

in addressing the research inquiries. Table 1 displays

the combination of terms employed to extract relevant

documents.

The subsequent sections of the paper are organ-

ised in the following manner. Section 2 outlines the

research methodology, whereas Section 3 presents the

obtained results and ﬁndings. Section 4 discusses

the societal considerations and lessons learned in em-

ploying qualitative research methodology, while Sec-

tion 5 concludes the paper.

Security Engineering in Cyber-Physical Systems: A Systematic Review of Methodological Approaches

823

Table 1: Categories of relevant topics.

Category of topics

Adaptive systems and adaptability

Evolvable systems

Security Attack Pattern

Cyber-physical systems

Industrial internet of things

Security attack events

Security Engineering

Security requirements engineering

Threat Modeling

Model-driven security

Adaptive security solution

Security, privacy and Risk analysis

Adaptive-driven software development

2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

To conduct this work, a comprehensive literature

review was undertaken. The research adopts sev-

eral established methodologies (DeLoach, S.A. et al.,

2017, Petersen, K et al., 2015), including research

inquiries, search strategies, selection and validation

processes, classiﬁcation approaches, formal frame-

works and models, meta-analyses, and an examina-

tion of various threats, attacks, and incidents. More-

over, the study adheres to these methodologies to en-

sure rigor and reliability. In the subsequent subsec-

tion, the research questions guiding the selection and

analysis of the articles will be discussed, with a focus

on their methodological signiﬁcance.

2.1 Research Question

This section outlines recent advancements in security

engineering for cyber-physical systems through the

formulation of key research question. The research

question (RQ) detailed below have guided the com-

prehensive review process.

RQ: What are the key research objectives and

methodological approaches used in security engineer-

ing for Cyber-Physical Systems

2.2 The Review Process

The review process includes employing a reputable

database to conduct a thorough search for relevant

articles that align with the selected topic. These

databases have extensive usage and are highly recog-

nized, with numerous publications on cyber security

being included in their indexes. The articles were se-

lected using search strings that include operators such

as "and" and "or", as well as keywords like "cyber

security", "CPS", and "security engineering". In addi-

tion, the search process also involves manually brows-

ing through highly cited papers and applying forward

search through the use of Google Scholar. Tables 5

and 6 demonstrate types of papers, Journals, and con-

ferences. In order to gather the articles, various poten-

tial sources have been investigated, including Google

Scholar and Web of Science. While Google Scholar

and Web of Science are widely used sources, the pri-

mary choice has been Scopus. Search strings were

employed to restrict and evaluate articles that have

been published in peer-reviewed Journals and confer-

ences.

Table 2: Attempt one: searching for relevant papers.

Scopus Google

Scholar

Web of Sci-

ence

total hits: 1400 Total hits:

440

Total hits:

216

Using the following combination of search terms

has provided the following results (Cyber security

AND CPS) OR (security engineering AND CPS) Cy-

ber security AND security engineering OR (cyber-

physical Systems )

Table 3: Attempt two: searching for relevant papers.

Scopus Google

Scholar

Web of

Science

total hits: 840 Total hits:

360

Total hits:

116

Following the search process, a total of 240 peer-

reviewed articles were initially identiﬁed. To ensure

both feasibility and relevance, the selection was re-

ﬁned based on the speciﬁc requirements of the study.

Citation rank was employed as a criterion for this pro-

cess, resulting in the exclusion of 240 articles with

fewer than four citations. Additionally, 83 articles

were deemed outside the scope of the study. Ulti-

mately, 86 articles that aligned with the established

criteria and addressed the research questions were se-

lected for inclusion. Tables 2 and 3 present the fre-

quency of attempts made to identify relevant articles.

The articles in this study have been categorised

into two primary classiﬁcations: conceptual and em-

pirical research. Moreover, the review process for

this study has speciﬁcally examined articles published

from 2008 to 2023, covering a span of 15 years. By

using the publication year as a criterion, the search

process has effectively excluded articles that do not

meet the speciﬁed criteria. However, this approach

has also had a detrimental effect on articles that could

have been included, provided their topic aligns with

ENASE 2025 - 20th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering

824

the study’s objective. Another criterion employed in

the search process involves excluding papers that do

not offer comprehensive research output, such as po-

sition papers, short papers, poster papers, technical

reports, and book chapters.

The papers have been excluded due to their in-

complete analysis and the difﬁculty in drawing con-

clusive results. Moreover, the inclusion or exclusion

of papers has been determined based on the biblio-

graphic information. The bibliographic information

for the papers included in this study has been auto-

matically extracted from Scopus. This information

includes the paper title, authors’ afﬁliation, country,

conference venue, year of publication, and the num-

ber of citations. The extraction process involves em-

ploying Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science.

Exclusion and Inclusion Criteria. This study aims

to comprehensively review relevant literature on secu-

rity engineering driven cyber physical systems from

multiple perspectives, considering both the research

contributions and methodologies, as well as the fo-

cus of the studies, irrespective of their speciﬁc re-

search approaches. Workshop publications and re-

gional conferences were excluded from the analysis

due to inconsistencies in quality and impact, as well

as their limited citation consideration. Furthermore,

short papers were omitted because they typically lack

the depth found in full research articles, particularly in

terms of methodology, data collection, and ﬁndings.

Finally, feasibility studies with low citation counts

were also excluded from the review.

This evaluation has only included publications

that use security engineering methodologies, as long

as they are applicable to cyber security within the

realm of cyber-physical systems, in order to fulﬁll the

inclusion criteria. The primary emphasis of the paper

relates to the current developments in security engi-

neering for cyber-physical systems. Only papers that

focus solely on security engineering and present in-

dependent research techniques and designs within the

cyber security ﬁeld have been selected as more rele-

vant to the goal of this review process. The grounded

analysis technique (Kai Petersen, et al., 2015, Adolph,

S et al., 2011) was employed during the review pro-

cess to aid in the classiﬁcation and selection of papers

for this study. This technique facilitated the identiﬁ-

cation of papers in the security engineering domain

that we were already familiar with, and we further an-

alyzed them using the reference links to ﬁnd related

papers. Tables 6 and 7 display the various types of

papers, along with their research design respectively.

Moreover, the tables provide information on the type

of journal and conference venues associated with each

paper.

Table 4: Key words used for searching.

Most Frequent Keywords

Cyber security, Security, Attack Surface

Analysis

Cyber-Physical Systems Security, Cyber-

Physical Energy Systems

privacy and Threat Modeling

Security attack, Security Engineering

Model driven engineering, Security Re-

quirements Engineering

Security events, Cybersecurity Frame-

works

Attack monitoring, Advanced Persistent

Threats (APT)

vulnerability, Security Evaluation

Threat, Case Study Analysis

Security incident, Industrial Control Sys-

tems (ICS) Security

Adaptive, Smart Grid Security, Internet of

Things (IoT) Security

Cyber risk, Risk Classiﬁcation

Adaptive framework, STRIDE, Systematic

Mapping

2.3 Initial Analysis of the Selected

Papers

RQ: What are the research objectives and the

methodologies employed in the development of se-

curity engineering approaches for CPS? The incor-

poration of publication year as a selection criterion

has considerably improved the rigor and efﬁciency of

the paper selection process. A minimum citation re-

quirement of four was implemented, which automat-

ically biases the results in favor of older articles that

have had more time to gather citations. As a result,

articles with fewer than four citations were omitted

from the analysis. An in-depth analysis of the cho-

sen literature uncovers new trends in the development

of innovative methodologies and experimental imple-

mentation strategies. There has been a gradual rise

in the number of studies employing integration and

extension approaches. This analysis indicates that re-

search using and integrating previous methodologies

has received heightened academic interest and rele-

vance. The review includes research using previous

methodologies, speciﬁcally those conducted by A.

Humayed et al., 2017, Banerjee et al. (2012), Raspot-

nig et al. (2012), Moore et al. (2011), Kephart et

al. (2013), Mirko et al. (2008), Tounsi et al. (2017),

Awotunde et al. (2023), Massimo et al. (2022), and

Ainslie et al. (2023).

This study demonstrates that the selected papers

Security Engineering in Cyber-Physical Systems: A Systematic Review of Methodological Approaches

825

Table 5: Types of papers used for the study.

Types of papers Description

Proposal Publications that propose something new, e.g., a language, ex-

tension, integration, algorithm

Formalization If the publication contains axioms„ some formal logical lan-

guage, relating to the proposal, it has a formalization

Meta-Study Publication which provided a signiﬁcant overview of existing

work or a study of existing research

Implementation Publication that mention the development of a tool or imple-

mentation

Integration Category was assigned if the publication contribution described

two different, distinct, named things

Extension Publication which focuses on some concepts which are not

named language or method

Evaluation case study The publication includes a case study which evaluates the con-

tribution

have analysed and made signiﬁcant progress in the

domain of security engineering. Among these papers,

six were deemed irrelevant as they exhibited a sim-

ilarity in subject matter but did not correspond with

the aim of this study. These papers were deﬁcient in

terms of clearly deﬁned research methods throughout

their study. Publications that lack the speciﬁed re-

search strategy have been excluded due to their ap-

parent irrelevance. Moreover, this study has revealed

a substantial increase in research focus on security en-

gineering in the last decade. This is noticeable from

the considerable amount of references related to cyber

security, security and privacy, and adaptive security,

as shown in Table 5. The study also encompassed ar-

ticles published in conferences and journals that were

relevant to the chosen articles for this review process.

3 ANALYSIS AND RESULT

Data Collection and Analysis. Table 7 presents

a systematic overview of the research designs em-

ployed in the publications analyzed in this study.

The identiﬁed methodologies include "New Propos-

als," "Formalization," "Meta-Study," "Implementa-

tion," "Integration," "Extension," and "Evaluation

Case Study." The analysis further reveals an increas-

ing scholarly focus on research investigating dispari-

ties (adaptations) and employing case study method-

ologies. Additionally, there is a discernible upward

trend in research output within the domain of secu-

rity engineering for cyber-physical systems, under-

scoring the growing academic interest in this ﬁeld.

The majority of the reviewed studies introduce theo-

retical propositions, which are subsequently validated

through empirical research utilizing real-world appli-

cations. By implementing methodologically rigorous

case studies, these studies offer robust empirical ev-

idence in support of their proposed frameworks and

methodologies, thereby contributing to the advance-

ment of knowledge in this domain. In response to

their research questions, the articles that have been

documented in table 7 are those that have presented

novel proposals and research methods to address the

problem that they have speciﬁed. In addition, there

are articles that demonstrate the use of more than two

different research designs. "A goal-driven approach

for adaptive system" by (Kephart, J. et al., 2013) and

security analysis for socio-technical systems by (An-

toineailliau et al., 2019) are two examples of articles

that fall into this category.

Several studies incorporate multiple research de-

sign objectives. Notable examples include "A Goal-

Based Modelling Approach to Develop Requirements

of an Adaptive System with Environmental Uncer-

tainty" by Kephart et al. (2013) and "Holistic Security

Requirements Analysis for Socio-Technical Systems"

by Antoineailliau et al. (2019). Additionally, two

studies proposed a research framework and subse-

quently validated it through comprehensive case stud-

ies, demonstrating the applicability and robustness of

their approach. In both cases, the proposed frame-

work was developed, empirically tested, and system-

atically evaluated within real-world contexts. Table

7 provides a visual representation of the various re-

search designs employed to effectively address multi-

ple research questions.

Research Method Used in the Selected Articles.

This section provides an evaluation of the research

methodologies employed in the selected publications.

Through a systematic screening process, a total of

86 papers were identiﬁed for inclusion in this study.

Among these, seven studies utilized a case study ap-

proach, three employed a survey-based methodology,

and three adopted a mixed-methods approach. The

speciﬁc details are presented in Table 9. Further-

more, this study identiﬁed six publications that em-

ployed quantitative data analysis methods, including

ENASE 2025 - 20th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering

826

Table 6: Types of Journal and Conference.

Types of Journal and conference Articles

International Conference on the Internet of Things (IoT) (C. Klötzer, 2015)

Practise of Enterprise Modeling Conference (A. Banerjee, 2012,

Kephart, J. 2013)

Journal of Intelligence Information Systems (Silva S, 2011)

Requirement Engineering Journal (Moore, 2011)

International Conference on Software Speciﬁcation and Design (Mburu, 2016)

ACM Transaction on Autonomous use and Adaptive Sys-

tems(TAAS)

(Zhu, B, 2011, Li, T.,

2014)

Requirement Engineering Conference (Lin, J, 2017, ; Van

L, 2011; Baumgarten,

2012 )

International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge

Engineering(IJSEKE)

(Kephart, J. 2013)

System Modeling journal (SoSym) (Cheminod, M, 2013,

Antoine, 2019)

International Journal on Systems of Systems Engineering (Turpe, S, 2017)

International Conference on Software Engineering (Yan, Y, 2012)

International Symposium on Engineering Secure Software and

Systems, ESSoS

(Haﬁz, M., 2009)

IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering (Yampolskiy, M, 2013,

Van L, 2011)

International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Lan-

guage and Systems

(Kephart, J. 2013)

Table 7: Research design used in the selected papers.

Research Design Articles

Proposal (Van Lamsweerde, 2011;

Turpe, S, 2017; Raspotnig, C.„

2012; Moore, 2011; Türpe, S.,

2018 Baumgarten, M., 2012;

Gharib, M., 2022 )

Formalization (Zhu, B, 2011, Lin, J, 2017, Li,

T, 2014; Mburu, L, 2016 )

Meta-Study (Yan, Y, 2012, Baumgarten, M,

2012)

Implementation (Pasqualetti, F, 2013; Zonouz,

S., 2014; Kephart, J, 2013;

Teixeira, A.,2015; Zhu, Q.

2011; Mo, Y., Kim, 2012;

Bresciani, 2014; Cheminod, M,

2013, Yampolskiy, M, 2013)

Integration (Sandberg, H. 2015; Srivas-

tava, A., 2016; Wang, Y, 2013;

Mirko, 2008; Moore„ 2011;

Kephart, J., 2013; A. Banerjee,

2012 )

Extension (Moore, 2011; Raspotnig, C.,

2012)

Evaluation case

study

(Yan, Y, 2012, Antoine, 2019)

(Humayed, A.„ et al., 2017; Khalid, F., et al., 2022;

Kim, D et al., 2022; Li, S., etal., 2016; Zografopou-

los, I., et al., 2017; Kephart et al. (2013), Antoine et

al. (2019), Moore et al. (2011), Silva et al. (2011),

Mirko et al. (2008), and Van L. et al. (2012).

The corresponding results are summarized in Ta-

ble 8. Conversely, several studies, including those by

(Shevchenko, N, etal., ; 2018, Xiong, W.,et al., 2019;

Tatam, J. etal., 2021; Valenza, F. etal., 2020; Kriaa,

etal., 2015; Mekdad, Y. etal., 2021; Neubert, S. etal.,

2020; Paudel, S.etl., 2017; Raspotnig et al. (2012),

Baumgarten et al. (2012), Turpe et al. (2017), and

Gharib et al. (2022), applied qualitative data analy-

sis techniques, as detailed in Table 8. Additionally,

three studies, including those by Li et al. (2018) and

Mburu et al. (2016), integrated multiple methodolog-

ical approaches. Notably, among the selected pub-

lications, only one study, conducted by Turpe et al.

(2017), adopted a conceptual framework as its pri-

mary research methodology.

This study revealed that a signiﬁcant propor-

tion of the reviewed papers relied on pre-existing

methodologies, with many studies employing an ap-

proach that incorporates and extends established tech-

niques. Speciﬁcally, among the analyzed publica-

tions, seven introduced novel research proposals, in-

cluding those by (Kim, D., etal, 2022; Valenza, F.

etal., 2020; Khalid, F. etal., 2022; Tatam, J., etal.,

2021; Shevchenko, N. etal., 2018; Neubert, S. etal.,

2020; Kephart et al. (2013), Antoine et al. (2019),

Moore et al. (2011), Van L. et al. (2012), Raspot-

nig et al. (2012), Baumgarten et al. (2012), Turpe et

al. (2017), and Gharib et al. (2022). Additionally,

four studies focused on various forms of methodolog-

ical integration, namely Kriaa, S etal., 2015; Mek-

dad, Y., etal., 2021; Xiong, W. etal., 2019; Humayed,

A et al., 2017; Li, S. etal., 2016; Banerjee et al.

Security Engineering in Cyber-Physical Systems: A Systematic Review of Methodological Approaches

827

Table 8: Summary of the data analysis method used in the

selected articles.

Data Analysis Method Articles

Quantitative ( Humayed, A.„ 2017, Khalid,

F., 2022, Kim, D., 2022, Li,

S., 2016, Zografopoulos, I.,

2017, Kephart, J., 2013; An-

toine, 2019; Zhu, B, 2011; Lin,

J, 2017; Moore, 2011; Mirko,

2008; A. Van, 2019)

Qualitative (Shevchenko, N, 2018, Xiong,

W., 2019, Tatam, J.„ 2021,

Valenza, F.„ 2020, Kriaa, 2015,

Mekdad, Y.2021, Neubert, S.„

2020, Paudel, S., 2017, Raspot-

nig, C.„ 2012; Baumgarten, M.,

2012; Turpe, S, 2017; Gharib,

M., 2022; Cheminod, M, 2013,

Yampolskiy, M, 2013)

(2012), Moore et al. (2011), Kephart et al. (2013),

and Silva Souza et al. (2011). Two papers, Moore et

al. (2011) and Raspotnig et al. (2012), adopted an

extension-based approach, building upon previous re-

search and methodologies. Moreover, studies by Li et

al. (2014) and Antoine et al. (2019) demonstrated a

degree of formalization, particularly in terms of the

classiﬁcation and categorization of research contri-

butions. Furthermore, four publications—Kephart et

al. (2013), Bresciani et al. (2014), and Silva et al.

(2011)—employed experimentation as a primary re-

search method.

Based on the study’s ﬁndings, it can be inferred

that over ﬁfty percent of the publications suggest in-

novative techniques or approaches, while the rest of

the papers mainly depend on established methodolo-

gies. Researchers in the subject of cyber security, par-

ticularly in security engineering, often use empirical

research methods such as surveys, case studies, mixed

methods, and experiments. However, security engi-

neering solutions rely less on conceptual analysis as a

research design process. Furthermore, this study has

deﬁnitively shown that case studies have been used as

a research approach in over ﬁfty percent of the papers.

Furthermore, it indicates an inclination for prolonged

usage, speciﬁcally in studies that include qualitative

data analysis.

This study makes a signiﬁcant contribution by

looking at and assessing the research strategy em-

ployed and the extent to which qualitative and quan-

titative data analysis methods have been applied in

the ﬁeld of security engineering. In furthermore, the

study reveals that the quantitative research data anal-

ysis method has been widely used in the selected pa-

pers that underwent review. This can be observed in

articles authored by ( Humayed, A.„ 2017, Khalid,

F., 2022, Kim, D., 2022, Li, S., 2016, Zografopoulos,

I., 2017, Van Lamsweerde et al 2011; Gharib, M et

al., 2022; Moore et al., 2011; Antoine et al., 2019;

Kephart, J., 2013; Bresciani, P et al., 2014 and Silva

S et al., 2011 ), as indicated in Table 8. Furthermore,

these papers employed the research strategies of case

study and survey. On the contrary, studies conducted

by ( (Shevchenko, N, 2018, Xiong, W., 2019, Tatam,

J.„ 2021, Valenza, F.„ 2020, Kriaa, 2015, Mekdad,

Y.2021, Neubert, S.„ 2020, Paudel, S., 2017, Turpe,

S. et al., 2017; Raspotnig, C., et al., 2012;Baum-

garten, M et al., 2012; Gharib, M et al., 2022; Mirko

et al., 2008; Moore et al., 2011; Kephart, J., 2013; A.

Banerjee et al., 2012 ) have employed qualitative data

analysis, and used case study research strategy. More-

over, the papers by (Turpe, S et al., 2017; Raspotnig,

C., et al., 2012; Baumgarten, M et al., 2012 ; Turpe,

S et al., 2017) used interviews and questionnaires as

methods for collecting data. On the other hand, the

papers by (Paudel, S. et al. 2017, Van Zografopou-

los, I, 2017, Lamsweerde et al 2011; Gharib, M et

al., 2022; Moore et al., 2011; Antoine et al., 2019;

Kephart, J., 2013; Bresciani, P., et al., 2014; and Silva

S et al., 2011 ) employed experiments as their data

collection methods.

The reviewed studies were categorized into two

primary classiﬁcations: empirical and conceptual re-

search. Within the empirical category, both quantita-

tive and qualitative data collection methods were uti-

lized, with surveys and case study methodologies be-

ing the most frequently employed approaches. Impor-

tantly, a considerable proportion of studies in the do-

main of security engineering for cyber-physical sys-

tems (CPS) predominantly adopted quantitative re-

search methodologies. However, several studies re-

vealed limitations in conducting rigorous empirical

evaluations, despite assertions of having undertaken

such assessments. For instance, Li et al. (2014) re-

ported the use of empirical evaluation; however, a

more in-depth analysis exposed shortcomings in both

validity and practical applicability. This highlights

the challenges encountered by many studies in align-

ing methodological rigor with their stated research

objectives. A total of 85 publications incorporated

empirical evaluations, emphasizing the critical role of

long-term empirical investigations and industrial case

studies in assessing various research methodologies.

This is particularly relevant to the ﬁeld of Security En-

gineering for Cyber-Physical Systems, which consti-

tutes the primary focus of this study. The reliance on

these comprehensive assessments reﬂects the ﬁeld’s

ongoing shift towards more rigorous and application-

oriented research approaches.

Validity of Research Method. This study attempted

ENASE 2025 - 20th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering

828

to evaluate the reliability of research methodologies

(Denscombe, M. et al., 2010; Morrow, S.L., et al.,

2005, Petersen, K. 2015,Kitchenham, B 2007 ) de-

signed to ensure that the study accurately measures

or tests its intended objectives, hence enhancing the

credibility of the research. The study considered the

criteria of internal and external validity to identify the

limitations of each review article in the use of diverse

research methodologies.

Table 9: Research Method.

Research

Method

Articles

Case study (Zhu, B, 2011, Lin, J, 2017, Kriaa,

S., 2015, Mekdad, Y., 2021, Neu-

bert, S.2020, Paudel, S., 2017, Zo-

grafopoulos, 2017, Moore, 2011;

Kephart, J., 2013; Moore, 2011;

Antoine, 2019; Van L, 2011; Turpe,

S, 2017)

Survey (Harkat, H.„ 2024, A. Humayed,

2017, Raspotnig, C., 2012; Baum-

garten, M., 2012; Gharib, M.„ 2022

; Türpe, S. 2018)

Mixed (Kriaa, S., , 2015, Mekdad, Y, 2021,

Cheminod, M, 2013, Yampolskiy,

M, 2013, Li, T., 2014; Mburu, L.W.,

2016 )

Conceptual

Framework

( Shevchenko, N, 2018, Xiong, W,

2021 Yan, Y, 2012, Valenza, F.

2020, Turpe, S, 2017)

Internal Validity. We assess the cause-and-effect

connection between the components under study in

the case studies (Methods Map - SAGE Research

Methods). This study has found a constraint in em-

pirical research that systematically analyzes the im-

plementation of extensive case studies. The review

as shown in Table 9, substantiates this ﬁnding. Proﬁ-

cient application and implementation of the suggested

frameworks and experiments in extensive case studies

involving a substantial number of participants neces-

sitate a signiﬁcant level of competence in the particu-

lar discipline. The research methodology employed

in many works, including articles (Shaﬁ, Q. et al.,

2012; Moore, et al., 2011; Kephart, J. et al., 2013 ;

A. Banerjee et al., 2012 ), entailed the implementa-

tion of empirical investigations using a quantitative

approach, speciﬁcally employing a case study strat-

egy and experiment.

Nevertheless, it is crucial to acknowledge that

these papers have limitations due to the fact that the

evaluation and experimentation were exclusively con-

ducted by the authors within controlled settings, such

as research groups. To enhance the quality and de-

pendability of their approach, the authors suggest

conducting assessments and experiments with exter-

nal users in their future research endeavours, with the

objective of guaranteeing trustworthiness (Brink, H..

et al., 1993)

Transferability and External Validity. This study

analysed the constraints of the articles in relation to

their method of research, enabling an assessment of

their external validity. Transferability is a standard

that guarantees reliability by highlighting external va-

lidity. The study analyses the degree to which its ﬁnd-

ings can be reproduced in various contexts (Mirko

Morandini et al., 2008). Articles (Antoine et al.,

2019; Moore et al., 2011; A. Banerjee et al., 2012;

A. Van Lamsweerde et al., 2011; Baumgarten, M., et

al., 2012 ) employed illustrative scenarios and created

a prototype tool to evaluate their proposal, although

limited to the control ground.

In the context of construct validity, an essential

criterion concerns the extent to which a test accu-

rately measures the concept it is intended to assess. It

is generally recommended that customer-centric ap-

proaches—particularly those directly impacting end

users—undergo testing and evaluation by domain ex-

perts, excluding the authors of the proposed approach,

to ensure unbiased validation. This form of valida-

tion is particularly crucial in critical systems, such

as adaptive security solutions for Air Trafﬁc Manage-

ment Systems, ﬁnancial sector security, and other do-

mains with comparable requirements. However, the

review of existing literature reveals that a majority of

the analyzed studies lack this essential validation. In-

stead, many were evaluated solely by experts from ex-

ternal domains, aiming to establish external validity

rather than ensuring comprehensive construct validity

(Brink et al., 1993; Morrow et al., 2005)

Dependability and Reliabiltiy. Dependability, the

fourth criterion, pertains to the issue of reliability.

It involves demonstrating that if a study were to be

replicated under identical conditions, using the same

methods and participants, it would yield consistent re-

sults (Denscombe et al., 2010; Morrow et al., 2005).

Moreover, reliability is a relative concept that reﬂects

the extent to which data analysis is inﬂuenced by the

speciﬁc researchers conducting the study. The ﬁnd-

ings of this review indicate that articles in which the

validation process is conducted exclusively by the au-

thors of the proposed approach exhibit a lack of relia-

bility. A notable example is the study by Baumgarten

et al. (2012), which employed a qualitative research

methodology. However, as the evaluation and valida-

tion were performed solely by the authors, the study’s

reliability is diminished, making its applicability to

real-world scenarios more challenging.

To mitigate this limitation, it is essential that the

proposed solution undergo evaluation not only by its

Security Engineering in Cyber-Physical Systems: A Systematic Review of Methodological Approaches

829

authors but also by independent researchers. Self-

evaluation by the original researchers poses a threat

to the validity of the study, as it limits the generaliz-

ability of the ﬁndings and raises concerns regarding

potential biases. To ensure the validity of the evalu-

ation, external participants should be involved in as-

sessing its effectiveness, thereby enhancing the credi-

bility and applicability of the research.

Challenges Associated with the Review Process.

This section focuses on the issues faced during the

review process, with a particular focus on those con-

nected to the analysis and results. From the original

pool of 240 publications, only the top 86 were se-

lected based on their direct alignment with the study’s

purpose. Any papers that had less than four citations

were not taken into account. Furthermore, works that

had fewer than two citations, according to Scopus,

were considered to have an invalid conclusion. The

reason for this is that shorter publications frequently

lack a thorough research strategy, which is a crucial

element of a research technique. However, the review

method unintentionally omitted a substantial number

of intriguing articles that expressly focus on the sub-

ject area of security engineering for cyber-physical

systems by eliminating papers with less than four ci-

tations. In addition, this study only evaluates articles

that satisfy the requirements of having at least four

citations and undergoing peer review. As a result, it

did not incorporate recent papers and contributions on

this subject, which may have possibly been used as

sources for qualitative and quantitative techniques.

Another issue that demonstrated bias is the use

of inclusion and exclusion criteria for the selection

of papers. The determination of the inclusion and

exclusion criteria in this study was purely based on

the author’s subjective judgment, making them very

prone to error. Our personal interest has informed

our selection of articles that speciﬁcally address se-

curity engineering for cyber-physical systems. How-

ever, we excluded other relevant studies either based

on our personal preference or because they did not

correspond with a certain study plan. Assessing the

robustness of studies is often challenging due to the

presence of numerous assumptions, such as the lack

of adequate justiﬁcation for the selection of data col-

lection and analysis methods in the chosen articles.

However, several papers include a section where they

explicitly acknowledge the limitations of their study.

Some even provide a discussion of these limitations

in the conclusion and future work section. This infor-

mation is valuable for assessing the extent to which

research methodologies were employed and proved

helpful during the review process.

Authors employing a case study as a research

method have expressed concerns. This concern re-

lates to the extent to which their ﬁndings can be ap-

plied to a broader population. For example, papers

such as (Kephart, J et al., 2013; Antoine et al., 2019

; Moore, Andrew et al., 2011 ; Shaﬁ, Q. et al., 2012;

A. Van Lamsweerde et al., 2011 ) suffer from a lack

of generalizability in their ﬁndings. In order to en-

hance the reliability of qualitative research, it is essen-

tial for papers using a case study as a research strat-

egy to explicitly demonstrate the methods employed

for data collection and analysis. Additionally, these

papers should include an evaluation of transferability,

conﬁrmability, credibility, and dependability in rela-

tion to their ﬁndings. It is observed that many papers

in the ﬁeld of security engineering for cyber-physical

systems fail to provide such information.

Moreover, this study has ascertained that the qual-

itative technique to data analysis is constrained in its

ability to explore questions related to the causes and

methodologies underlying speciﬁc events. The arti-

cles reviewed in this study have mostly concentrated

on ﬁnding different variables associated with secu-

rity engineering. While qualitative research studies

are commonly used scenarios, they were unable to

demonstrate how applicable they were. Conducting

an online survey using a self-selecting sampling ap-

proach severely limits the capacity to apply the ﬁnd-

ings to a larger population. Several research studies

have used triangulation as a method to gather data

from several sources of veriﬁcation, including exten-

sive data sets such as publications (Kephart, J. et al.,

2013; Bresciani, P., et al., 2014; Moore, et al., 2011;

Li, T. et al., 2014 ). Other research employed a hybrid

methodology for data collecting, notably adopting the

approach used by (Van Lamsweerde et al., 2011).

Societal Considerations and Lessons Learned

Within the Realm of Cyber Physical-Systems. It

is essential for researchers to cultivate the necessary

expertise to identify and apply appropriate research

methodologies that effectively establish the relation-

ship between the applicability and reusability of their

proposed approaches. As highlighted in the reviewed

literature, some ﬁndings could not be independently

veriﬁed, underscoring the importance of methodolog-

ical rigor. To enhance the reliability and impact of

their contributions, researchers should strive to pro-

duce valid and replicable ﬁndings that can be uti-

lized by scholars both within and beyond their imme-

diate ﬁeld of study. People, operational procedures,

cutting-edge technology, and physical structures are

all components of CPS, which are complex systems

that include all of these elements. When it comes to

the development of security solutions for CPS, it is of

the utmost importance to take into consideration the

ENASE 2025 - 20th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering

830

social aspect or social domain as one of the key com-

ponents to be considered in the early stages of system

development.

The research we have undertaken provides a full

analysis of security engineering, considering it in

terms of three layers of CPS: The business layer is re-

sponsible for conceptualizing the social component,

the application layer is responsible for the software,

and the infrastructure layer is responsible for deploy-

ing the system. The business layer serves as the main

entry point for any potential security breaches that

may occur inside these three layers. The security

breach might be attributed to the business layer. Re-

garding cybersecurity, studies that concentrate on the

business aspects generally adopt a qualitative method-

ology, whereas research that centers on the applica-

tion and infrastructure layer typically employs a quan-

titative methodology. Both methodologies were con-

sidered in all of the selected papers during the review

process. This assessment procedure has suggested a

modest rise in the use of the quantitative approach as

a research method in the sector of cybersecurity.

4 CONCLUSION

This study provides a comprehensive systematic re-

view of security engineering methodologies applied

to Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS), analyzing 86 se-

lected papers published over the past 15 years. Our

ﬁndings reveal a strong emphasis on empirical re-

search methodologies, particularly case studies, sur-

veys, and mixed-method approaches, demonstrat-

ing the ﬁeld’s shift toward application-driven and

evidence-based security engineering. The analy-

sis highlights a predominant reliance on quantitative

methodologies, reinforcing the growing importance

of integrating established techniques to address CPS

security challenges effectively.

Despite these advancements, our study identiﬁes

critical gaps in the literature, including limited gen-

eralizability of ﬁndings, insufﬁcient external valida-

tion, and inconsistencies in empirical rigor. Many

security engineering frameworks lack extensive real-

world evaluation, making their practical applicabil-

ity uncertain. Addressing these challenges requires

stronger interdisciplinary collaborations, robust val-

idation processes, and the development of scalable,

adaptable security models that align with the dynamic

nature of CPS environments. This study contributes

to the ﬁeld by offering a structured assessment of ex-

isting security engineering methodologies, identify-

ing key trends, and outlining essential research di-

rections for the future. The ﬁndings underscore the

necessity of advancing context-aware, adaptive secu-

rity solutions that integrate cyber and physical do-

mains while incorporating both technical and socio-

technical considerations. Future research should fo-

cus on developing innovative security paradigms that

balance theoretical robustness with practical applica-

bility, ensuring that CPS remain resilient in the face

of evolving cyber threats.

By bridging the gap between theoretical models

and practical implementations, this study provides

a foundation for enhancing the security engineering

landscape within CPS. We advocate for a more sys-

tematic approach to evaluating and reﬁning security

frameworks, fostering a research environment that

prioritizes empirical validation, cross-domain appli-

cability, and sustainable security practices.

REFERENCES

A. Humayed, J. Lin, F. Li and B. Luo, "Cyber-Physical Sys-

tems Security—A Survey," in IEEE Internet of Things

Journal, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 1802-1831, Dec. 2017

Harkat, H., Camarinha-Matos, L. M., Goes, J., & Ahmed,

H. F. T. (2024). Cyber-physical systems security: A

systematic review. Computers and Industrial Engi-

neering, 188, 109891.

Petersen, K., Feldt, R., Mujtaba, S., & Mattsson, M. (2015).

Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies

in software engineering: An update. Information and

Software Technology, 64, 1-18.

Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for per-

forming systematic literature reviews in software en-

gineering (EBSE Technical Report No. EBSE-2007-

01). Keele University and Durham University. Re-

trieved from

Urbach, N.; Röeglinger, M. Introduction to Digitalization

Cases: How Organizations Rethink Their Business

for the Digital Age; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Ger-

many, 2019

Cardenas, A. A., Amin, S., & Sastry, S. (2008). Research

challenges for the security of control systems. Pro-

ceedings of the 3rd Conference on Hot Topics in Se-

curity, 6.

Krotoﬁl, M., & Gollmann, D. (2013). Industrial control sys-

tems security: What is happening? Proceedings of the

11th IEEE International Conference on Industrial In-

formatics, 670-675.

Kwon, C., Liu, W., & Hwang, I. (2013). Security analysis

for cyber-physical systems against stealthy deception

attacks. Proceedings of the American Control Confer-

ence, 3344-3349.

Mo, Y., Kim, T. H., Brancik, K., Dickinson, D., Lee, H.,

Perrig, A., & Sinopoli, B. (2012). Cyber-physical se-

curity of a smart grid infrastructure. Proceedings of

the IEEE, 100(1), 195-209.

Pasqualetti, F., Dorﬂer, F., & Bullo, F. (2013). Attack de-

tection and identiﬁcation in cyber-physical systems.

Security Engineering in Cyber-Physical Systems: A Systematic Review of Methodological Approaches

831

IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 58(11),

2715-2729.

Sandberg, H., Teixeira, A., & Johansson, K. H. (2015).

Cyber-physical security in networked control systems:

An introduction to the issue. IEEE Control Systems

Magazine, 35(1), 20-23.

Srivastava, A., & Amin, S. (2016). Cyber-security and pri-

vacy in cyber-physical systems: Threats and defenses.

IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Computing, 1(2),

110-112.

Teixeira, A., Shames, I., Sandberg, H., & Johansson, K.

H. (2015). A secure control framework for resource-

limited adversaries. Automatica, 51, 135-148.

Wang, Y., & Lu, X. (2013). Cyber security in the Smart

Grid: Survey and challenges. Computer Networks,

57(5), 1344-1371.

Zhang, Y., Xiang, Y., Wang, L., Wright, M., & Liu, S.

(2012). Enhancing cyber-physical systems with wire-

less sensor and actuator networks. Ad Hoc Networks,

10(3), 233-244.

Zhu, B., Joseph, A., & Sastry, S. (2011). A taxonomy of cy-

ber attacks on SCADA systems. Proceedings of the In-

ternational Conference on Internet of Things and 4th

International Conference on Cyber, Physical and So-

cial Computing, 380-388.

Zhu, Q., & Ba¸sar, T. (2011). Robust and resilient control de-

sign for cyber-physical systems with an application to

power systems. Proceedings of the 50th IEEE Confer-

ence on Decision and Control and European Control

Conference, 4066-4071.

Zonouz, S., Rrushi, J., & Rogers, K. (2014). Detecting in-

dustrial control malware using automated PLC code

analytics. Proceedings of the 19th European Sympo-

sium on Research in Computer Security, 439-456.

Khalid, F., Latif, K., & Latif, S. (2022). A systematic map-

ping study on security requirements engineering ap-

proaches for cyber-physical systems. Journal of Sys-

tems and Software, 183, 111091.

Khan, R., McLaughlin, K., Laverty, D., & Sezer, S. (2017).

STRIDE-based threat modeling for cyber-physical

systems. Proceedings of the IEEE PES Innovative

Smart Grid Technologies Conference Europe (ISGT-

Europe), 1-6

Kim, D., Kim, J., & Kim, H. (2022). Security risk as-

sessment framework for cyber-physical systems using

STRIDE and DREAD. Sensors, 22(3), 1045

Kriaa, S., Bouissou, M., & Piètre-Cambacédès, L. (2015).

Modeling the Stuxnet attack with BDMP: Towards

more formal risk assessments. Proceedings of the 7th

International Conference on Risks and Security of In-

ternet and Systems (CRiSIS), 1-8.

Li, S., Tryfonas, T., & Li, H. (2016). The Internet of Things:

A security point of view. Internet Research, 26(2),

337-359

Mekdad, Y., Chehab, A., & Tawil, R. (2021). A threat model

method for ICS malware: The TRISIS case. Comput-

ers & Security, 105, 102224.

Neubert, S., & Vielhauer, C. (2020). Kill chain attack mod-

eling for hidden channel attack scenarios in industrial

control systems. Proceedings of the 15th International

Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security

(ARES), 1-6.

Paudel, S., Clements, S., & McLaughlin, K. (2017). Attack

models for advanced persistent threats in smart grid

wide area monitoring. Proceedings of the 5th Interna-

tional Symposium for ICS & SCADA Cyber Security

Research (ICS-CSR), 1-8.

Shevchenko, N., Chick, T., O’Riordan, P., Scanlon, T., &

Woody, C. (2018). Threat modeling: A summary of

available methods. Carnegie Mellon University Soft-

ware Engineering Institute.

Tatam, J., Jones, K., & Janicke, H. (2021). A review of

threat modelling approaches for APT-style attacks.

Journal of Cyber Security Technology, 5(2), 85-106.

Valenza, F., Armando, A., & Compagna, L. (2020). A hy-

brid threat model for smart systems. Proceedings of

the 15th International Conference on Availability, Re-

liability and Security (ARES), 1-10

Xiong, W., & Lagerström, R. (2019). Threat modeling—A

systematic literature review. Computers & Security,

84, 53-69.

Zografopoulos, I., Koutsandria, G., & Maniatakos, M.

(2017). Cyber-physical energy systems security:

Threat modeling, risk assessment, resources, met-

rics, and case studies. IEEE Transactions on Emerging

Topics in Computing, 5(3), 391-407

Awotunde, J. B., Oguns, Y. J., Amuda, K. A., Nigar,

N., Adeleke, T. A., Olagunju, K. M., & Ajagbe, S.

A. (2023). Cyber-physical systems security: analy-

sis, opportunities, challenges, and future prospects.

Blockchain for Cybersecurity in Cyber-Physical Sys-

tems, 21-46.

Boyes H, Hallaq B, Cunningham J, Watson T. The indus-

trial internet of things (IIoT): An analysis framework.

Computers in industry. 2018 Oct 1;101:1-2.

Griffor, E. R., Greer, C., Wollman, D. A., & Burns, M. J.

(2017). Framework for cyber-physical systems: Vol-

ume 2, working group reports.

Henzinger, Tom, Edward A. Lee, Alberto Sangiovanni-

Vincentelli, Shankar Sastry, Alex Aiken, Dave Aus-

lander, Ruzena Bajcsy et al. "Center for Hybrid and

Embedded Software Systems." (2008).

Baheti, R., & Gill, H. (2011). Cyber-physical systems. The

impact of control technology, 12(1), 161-166.

Poovendran, R. (2010). Cyber-physical systems: Close en-

counters between two parallel worlds [point of view].

Proceedings of the IEEE, 98(8):1363-1366

Shaﬁ, Q. (2012). Cyber physical systems security: A brief

survey. In 2012 12th International Conference on

Computational Science and Its Applications, pages

146-150. IEEE

Massimo G., Cassavia, N., Pisani, F. S., & Manco, G.

(2022). Boosting cyber-threat intelligence via collab-

orative intrusion detection. Future Generation Com-

puter Systems, 135, 30-43.

Ainslie, S., Thompson, D., Maynard, S., & Ahmad,

A. (2023). Cyber-threat intelligence for security

decision-making: A review and research agenda for

practice. Computers & Security, 132, 103352.

Tounsi, W., & Rais, H. (2018). A survey on technical threat

ENASE 2025 - 20th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering

832

intelligence in the age of sophisticated cyber attacks.

Computers & security, 72, 212-233.

Conway, John. "The Industrial Internet of Things: an evo-

lution to a smart manufacturing enterprise." Schneider

Electric (2016).

C. Klötzer and A. Pﬂaum, "Cyber-physical systems as the

technical foundation for problem solutions in man-

ufacturing, logistics and supply chain management,"

2015 5th International Conference on the Internet of

Things (IOT), Seoul, Korea (South), 2015

A. Banerjee, K. K. Venkatasubramanian, T. Mukherjee and

S. K. S. Gupta, "Ensuring Safety, Security, and Sus-

tainability of Mission-Critical Cyber-Physical Sys-

tems," in Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 100, no. 1,

pp. 283-299, Jan. 2012

Li, T., Horkoff, J. (2014). Dealing with Security Require-

ments for Socio-Technical Systems: A Holistic Ap-

proach. In: Jarke, M., et al. Advanced Information

Systems Engineering. CAiSE 2014. Lecture Notes in

Computer Science, vol 8484. Springer, Cham.

Ali, R., Dalpiaz, F. & Giorgini, P. A goal-based frame-

work for contextual requirements modeling and anal-

ysis. Requirements Eng 15, 439-458 (2010).

Li, T., Horkoff, J., Mylopoulos, J. (2014). Integrating Se-

curity Patterns with Security Requirements Analy-

sis Using Contextual Goal Models. In: Frank, U.,

Loucopoulos, P., Pastor, Ó., Petrounias, I. (eds) The

Practice of Enterprise Modeling. PoEM 2014. Lecture

Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 197.

Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

Antoineailliau and Axel Van Lamsweerde. 2019. Runtime

Monitoring and Resolution of Probabilistic Obstacles

to System Goals. ACM Trans. Auton. Adapt. Syst. 14,

1, Article 3 (March 2019), 40 pages.

Li, T., Horkoff, J. & Mylopoulos, J. Holistic security

requirements analysis for socio-technical systems.

Softw Syst Model 17, 1253-1285 (2018)

Türpe, S., 2017, September. The trouble with security re-

quirements. In 2017 IEEE 25th International Require-

ments Engineering Conference (RE) (pp. 122-133).

IEEE.

Yoder, J. and Barcalow, J., 1997, September. Architectural

patterns for enabling application security. In Proceed-

ings of the 4th Conference on Patterns Language of

Programming (PLoP’97) (Vol. 2, p. 30).

Fernández, Eduardo B., Mihai Fonoage, Michael Van-

Hilst and Mirela Marta. “The Secure Three-Tier Ar-

chitecture Pattern.” 2008 International Conference on

Complex, Intelligent and Software Intensive Systems

(2008): 555-560.

Fernandez, Eduardo B. "Two Patterns for Web Services Se-

curity." In International Conference on Internet Com-

puting, pp. 801-807. 2004.

Asnar, Yudis, Fabio Massacci, Ayda Saidane, Carlo Ric-

cucci, Massimo Felici, Alessandra Tedeschi, Paul El-

Khoury, Keqin Li, Magali Séguran, and Nicola Zan-

none. "Organizational Patterns for Security and De-

pendability: from design to application." International

Journal of Secure Software Engineering (IJSSE) 2, no.

3 (2011): 1-22.

Fernandez-Buglioni, Eduardo. Security patterns in prac-

tice: designing secure architectures using software

patterns. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.

Haﬁz, M., Adamczyk, P. and Johnson, R.E., 2007. Organiz-

ing security patterns. IEEE software, 24(4), pp.52-60.

Scandariato, Riccardo, Koen Yskout, Thomas Heyman, and

Wouter Joosen. "Architecting software with security

patterns." CW Reports (2008).

Wang, E.K., Ye, Y., Xu, X., Yiu, S.M., Hui, L.C.K.

and Chow, K.P., 2010, December. Security issues

and challenges for cyber physical system. In 2010

IEEE/ACM Int’l Conference on Green Computing

and Communications & Int’l Conference on Cyber,

Physical and Social Computing (pp. 733-738). IEEE.

Zhu, B., Joseph, A., & Sastry, S. (2011). A Taxonomy

of Cyber Attacks on SCADA Systems. 2011 Interna-

tional Conference on Internet of Things and 4th In-

ternational Conference on Cyber, Physical and Social

Computing

CheminodM., Durante, M., Durante, L., & Valenzano, A.

(2013). Review of security issues in industrial net-

works. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics

Lin J., Yu, J., Yu, W., Zhang, N., Yang, X., Zhang, H.,

& Zhao, W. (2017). A survey on Internet of Things:

Architecture, enabling technologies, security and pri-

vacy, and applications. IEEE Internet of Things Jour-

nal, 4(5),

Yan Y., Qian, Y., Qian, Y., Sharif, H., & Tipper, D. (2012).

A survey on cyber security for smart grid communi-

cations. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials,

14(4), 998-1010

Yan Y., Qian, Y., Qian, Y., Sharif, H., & Tipper, D. (2012).

A survey on cyber security for smart grid communi-

cations. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials,

14(4), 998-1010.

Yampolskiy, M., Horvath, P., Koutsoukos, X. D., Xue, Y., &

Sztipanovits, J. (2013). Taxonomy for description of

cross-domain attacks on CPS. Proceedings of the 2nd

ACM International Conference on High Conﬁdence

Networked Systems, 135-142.

Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F. and

Mylopoulos, J., 2004. Tropos: An agent-oriented soft-

ware development methodology. Autonomous Agents

and Multi-Agent Systems, 8, pp.203-236.

Li, T., Horkoff, J., Paja, E., Beckers, K. and Mylopoulos,

J., 2015. Analyzing attack strategies through anti-goal

reﬁnement. In The Practice of Enterprise Modeling:

8th IFIP WG 8.1. Working Conference, PoEM 2015,

Valencia, Spain, November 10-12, 2015, Proceedings

8 (pp. 75-90). Springer International Publishing.

Raspotnig, C., Karpati, P., Katta, V. (2012). A Combined

Process for Elicitation and Analysis of Safety and Se-

curity Requirements. In: Bider, I., et al. Enterprise,

Business-Process and Information Systems Model-

ing. BPMDS EMMSAD 2012 2012. Lecture Notes in

Business Information Processing, vol 113. Springer,

Berlin, Heidelberg

Dalpiaz, F., Borgida, A., Horkoff, J. and Mylopoulos, J.,

2013, May. Runtime goal models: Keynote. In IEEE

7th international conference on research challenges in

information science (RCIS) (pp. 1-11). IEEE.

Security Engineering in Cyber-Physical Systems: A Systematic Review of Methodological Approaches

833

Müller, H., Litoiu, M. and Mylopoulos, J., 2016, October.

Engineering cybersecurity in cyber physical systems.

In Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Con-

ference on Computer Science and Software Engineer-

ing (pp. 316-320).

Axel Van Lamsweerde. 2009. Requirements Engineering:

From System Goals to UML Models to Software

Speciﬁcations (1st. ed.). Wiley Publishing.

V. E. S. Souza, "A requirements-based approach for the

design of adaptive systems," 2012 34th International

Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), Zurich,

Switzerland, 2012

A. Van Lamsweerde, "Goal-oriented requirements engi-

neering: a guided tour," Proceedings Fifth IEEE In-

ternational Symposium on Requirements Engineer-

ing, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2001, pp. 249-262, doi:

10.1109/ISRE.2001.948567.

Haley, C.B., Laney, R.C., Moffett, J.D. et al. Using trust as-

sumptions with security requirements. Requirements

Eng 11, 138-151 (2006)

Mburu, L.W. and Helbich, M., 2016. Environmental risk

factors inﬂuencing bicycle theft: A spatial analysis in

London, UK. PLoS one, 11(9), p.e0163354.

Feather, S. Fickas, A. van Lamsweerde and C. Ponsard,

"Reconciling system requirements and runtime be-

havior," Proceedings Ninth International Workshop on

Software Speciﬁcation and Design, Ise-Shima, Japan,

1998

Moore, Andrew, Robert Ellison, and Richard Linger. "At-

tack Modeling for Information Security and Surviv-

ability." (Technical Note CMU/SEI-2001-TN-001).

Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering In-

stitute’s Digital Library, Software Engineering Insti-

tute, 1 Mar. 2001.

C. Haley, Jonas. MoffettR. Laney, and B. Nuseibeh, "Se-

curity Requirements Engineering: A Framework for

Representation and Analysis," in IEEE Transactions

on Software Engineering, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 133-153,

Jan.-Feb. 2008, doi: 10.1109/TSE.2007.70754.

Qureshi, N.A., Jureta, I.J. and Perini, A., 2011. Require-

ments engineering for self-adaptive systems: Core on-

tology and problem statement. In Advanced Informa-

tion Systems Engineering: 23rd International Confer-

ence, CAiSE 2011, London, UK, June 20-24, 2011.

Proceedings 23 (pp. 33-47). Springer Berlin Heidel-

berg.

Kephart, J. and David M. Chess. “The Vision of Autonomic

Computing.” Computer 36 (2003): 41-50.

Betty H.C, B.H., Sawyer, P., Bencomo, N. and Whittle, J.,

2009, October. A goal-based modeling approach to

develop requirements of an adaptive system with en-

vironmental uncertainty. In International Conference

on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems

(pp. 468-483). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin

Heidelberg.

Silva Souza, V.E., Lapouchnian, A., Robinson, W.N. and

Mylopoulos, J., 2011, May. Awareness requirements

for adaptive systems. In Proceedings of the 6th in-

ternational symposium on Software engineering for

adaptive and self-managing systems (pp. 60-69).

Mirko Morandini, Loris Penserini, and Anna Perini. 2008.

Towards goal-oriented development of self-adaptive

systems. In Proceedings of the 2008 international

workshop on Software engineering for adaptive and

self-managing systems (SEAMS ’08). Association for

Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 9-16.

Mouratidis, H., Weiss, M. and Giorgini, P., 2006. Mod-

eling secure systems using an agent-oriented ap-

proach and security patterns. International Journal of

Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering,

16(03), pp.471-498.

Yijun Yu, Haruhiko Kaiya, Hironori Washizaki, Yingfei

Xiong, Zhenjiang Hu, and Nobukazu Yoshioka. 2008.

Enforcing a security pattern in stakeholder goal mod-

els. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM workshop on

Quality of protection (QoP ’08). Association for Com-

puting Machinery, New York, NY, USA,

Phillips, C. and Swiler, L.P., 1998, January. A graph-based

system for network-vulnerability analysis. In Proceed-

ings of the 1998 workshop on New security paradigms

(pp. 71-79).

Martins, Eliane, Anderson Morais, and Ana Cavalli. "Gen-

erating attack scenarios for the validation of secu-

rity protocol implementations." In The 2nd Brazil-

ian Workshop on Systematic and Automated Software

Testing (SBES 2008-SAST). 2008.

Adam Shostack. 2014. Threat Modeling: Designing for Se-

curity (1st. ed.). Wiley Publishing.

DeLoach, S.A. and Miller, M., 2017. A goal model for

adaptive complex systems. J. Adv. Comput. Res, 2,

pp.83-92.

Kai Petersen, Sairam Vakkalanka, Ludwik Kuzniarz,

Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies

in software engineering: An update, Information and

Software Technology, Volume 64, 2015, Pages 1-18,

Adolph, S., Hall, W. and Kruchten, P. 2011. Using grounded

theory to study the experience of software develop-

ment. Empirical Software Engineering, 16, 4, 487-

513.

Denscombe, M. (2010) The good research guide: For small-

scale social research projects (4ed) Berkshire: Open

University Press

Brink, H.. (1993). Validity and reliability in qualita-

tive research. Curationis. 16. 35-8. 10.4102/curatio-

nis.v16i2.1396.

Morrow, S.L., 2005. Quality and trustworthiness in quali-

tative research in counseling psychol-ogy. Journal of

Counseling Psychology 52, 250-260.

Baumgarten, M., 2012. Paradigm wars-validity and reliabil-

ity in qualitative research. GRIN Ver-lag.

Turpe, S.: The trouble with security requirements. In: Re-

quirements Engineering Conference (RE), 2017 IEEE

25th International. pp. 122-133. IEEE (2017)

Gharib, M., Ceccarelli, A., Lollini, P. and Bondavalli,

A., 2022. A cyber-physical-social approach for engi-

neering Functional Safety Requirements for automo-

tive systems. Journal of Systems and Software, 189,

p.111-310.

Liliana Pasquale, Dalal Alrajeh, Claudia Peersman, Thein

Tun, Bashar Nuseibeh, and Awais Rashid. 2018. To-

wards forensic-ready software systems. In Proceed-

ings of the 40th International Conference on Software

Engineering:

ENASE 2025 - 20th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering

834