A4CLOUD

(Accountability For Cloud and Other Future Internet Services)

www.a4cloud.eu

Co-Ordinator:

HP UK

1. A framework for accountability in the cloud that includes concrete practical definitions of accountability and attributes to be implemented
2. Toolset for accountability including preventative, corrective and detective modules
3. Architecture for accountability and best practices that can be implemented by an organisation.

ABC4TRUST

(Attribute-based Credentials for Trust)

www.abc4trust.eu

Co-Ordinator:

Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany

Focus on improving internet privacy by developing capabilities to introduce attribute-based credentials into identity management systems, allowing users to only reveal the minimum information required by the application, without giving away full identity information

1. ABC4trust reference architecture for attribute-based credentials, a new privacy enhancing authentication technology
2. Prototype implementations of attribute-based credentials schemes which are validated by large pilots with end-users
3. Smart card-based operations with attribute-based credentials and prototype systems of issuers and verifiers

ANIKETOS

(Secure and Trustworthy Composite Services)

www.aniketos.eu

Co-Ordinator:

SINTEF, Norway

1. Language for expressing security and trustworthiness requirements on socio-technical systems, in the form of Socio-Technical Security Modelling Language (STS-ml) and the accompanying tool (STS-tool)
2. Security-by-Contract paradigm for services that enables services to express their security and trust requirements in machine readable forms
3. Umbrella platform and tool support to support service designers in building composite services, and to allow administrators to monitor service execution

ASSERT4SOA

(Advanced Security Service cERTificate for SOA)

www.assert4soa.eu

Co-Ordinator:

SAP Germany

Focus on security certification for service-based applications, and increased confidence in security of third party composite services.

Project aims to produce security certification standards for services, accounting for dynamic nature of services and tackling assurance for service compositions.

1. Machine readable description language (ASSERT) for defining service security certificates
2. ASSERT architecture enabling an ontology-based format for certificates, and linking of security properties to evidence supporting them.
3. ASSERTSOA integrated prototype for implementing an ASSERT-enabled service marketplace.

ATTPS

(Achieving The Trust Paradigm Shift)

www.trustindigitallife.eu

Co-Ordinator:

BICORE, Netherlands

Focused on promoting public awareness of the reality that trustworthy solutions that do not disclose user data to third parties are rarely available for free – aimed at enabling a “trust paradigm shift” in the community.

Additional focus on experimental platform for validating trustworthiness of internet solutions.

1. ATTPs validation environment including testbeds and secure components developed by members of ATTPS, supporting analysis of trustworthiness and acceptability of their services.
2. Environment can be used either with support of a usability lab or a living lab with actual end users
3. Generic trust architectures for mobile and service platform integrity, and secure data lifecycle management

AVANTSSAR

(Automated VAlidatioN of Trust and Security of Service-oriented Architectures)

www.avantssar.eu

Co-Ordinator:

University of Verona, Italy

Focus on increasing security of service oriented architectures – particularly the validation service oriented architectures from a Trust and Security (T+S) perspective, and their composition into secure service architectures.

Project proposed a rigourous technology for the formal specification and automated validation of trust and security of service oriented architectures, supported by automated toolset components

(1) A formal language for specifying trust and security properties of services, policies and composition into service architectures (ASLan++);

(2) Automated tech techniques for reasoning about dynamic composite services + policies

(3) Validation platform for validating T+S of SOAs

(4) Library of validated composed services and service architectures to show evidence of solution scalability

CONSEQUENCE

(Context-aware data-centric information sharing

www.consequence-project.eu

Co-Ordinator:

Microsoft Germany

Focus on development of data centric information protection framework, based on data-sharing agreements – aiming to mitigate privacy and confidentiality threats associated with unauthorised data sharing.

Framework aims to take simultaneous account for technological, economic and social aspects of exchange.

1. Scalable, secure context aware and resilient architecture for data sharing – facilitating dynamic policy management and enforcement, and end-to-end data protection across multiple orgs
2. Techniques for organisation neutral data sharing agreements (incl. models, algorithms, tools
3. POC implementation of CONSEQUENCE framework

EURO-MILS

(Secure European Virtualization for Trustworthy Applications in Critical Domains)

www.euromils.eu

Co-Ordinator:

TECHNIKON, Austria

Focussed on deriving standards for security evaluation of highly critical embedded systems based on MILS (Multiple Independent Levels of Security) approach.

Project focusing on providing trustworthiness by design, and high assurance for such systems, including strong guarantees for isolation of resources by means of security certification.

1. The first MILS-enabled certification in Europe across the main implementation of the MILS demonstrator.
2. MILS platform design that offers secure virtualisation of complex systems into independent components with tight control of information flow among them
3. Proof of concept prototypes for the project use cases in the avionics and automotive domains

FutureID

(Shaping the future of electronic identity)

www.futureid.eu

Co-Ordinator:

Fraunhofer IAO, Germany

Project aiming  for comprehensive, flexible, privacy friendly but usable identity management infrastructure for Europe, integrating existing eID solutions and trust infrastructures

Focuses on interoperability of eID systems. Existing eID technologies are often not compatible, with identity providers issuing its own credentials unrecognisable by other providers. 

1. Identity broker technology providing middleware that guides users to the right identity scheme.
2. Open source eID client implementing FutureID, capable of running on multiple platforms
3. Application integration service for relying parties that eases integration of existing services into the FutureID infrastructure

INTER-TRUST

(Interoperable Trust Assurance Infrastructure)

www.inter-trust.eu

Co-Ordinator:

Softeco Sismat Italy

1. Conceptual INTER-TRUST framework for trust and security policies negotiation among composite services and dynamic introduction of security features to existing software, without needing to fully rewrite code
2. Prototype serving as a complete proof-of-concept implementation of the conceptual framework.

MASSIF

(MAnagement of Security information and events in Service InFrastructures)

www.massif-project.eu

Co-Ordinator:

ATOS, Spain

1. Improved support for scalable multilevel event processing and predictive security monitoring
2. Key mechanisms include advanced attack detection methods, cross-layer security event correlation and decision support for potential attack impacts, predictive security monitoring, attack response mechanisms
3. An overall architecture integrating the above mechanisms

MASTER

(Managing Assurance, Security and Trust for Services)

www.master-fp7.eu

Co-Ordinator:

Atos Spain

1. A MASTER methodology for describing how an organisation can derive specific activities to be done and control objectives from high-level regulations and policies
2. A MASTER design workbench, which is a toolset for translating high-level regulations and policies into low-level policies that control management process in an organisation.

MICIE

(Tool for systemic risk analysis and secure mediation of data exchanged across linked CI information infrastructures)

www.micie.eu

Co-Ordinator:

Selex, Italy

1. Modelling support for off-line design of critical infrastructures that support detection of dominant dynamics from a series of occurring undesired events
2. MICIE Secure mediation gateways for collection of undesired events, and their translation into a common meta-data model for secure exchange
3. MICIE online risk prediction tool for predicting risk levels in real-time from CI models, and the meta-data received.

MUSES

(Multiplatform Usable Endpoint Security)

www.musesproject.eu

Co-Ordinator:

S2 Grupo, Spain

1. Device agnostic technique to deploy and enforce corporate ICT security policies
2. Technique to detect anomalies in user behaviour while not intruding on user privacy and compliance with existing EU and national laws
3. Open source prototype demonstrating BYOD security

NEMESYS

(Enhanced Network Security for Seamless Service Provisioning in the Smart Mobile Ecosystem)

www.nemesys-project.eu/nemesys

Co-Ordinator:

Imperial College London UK                      

1. Threat database based on existing smartphone platforms and comprehensive analysis of these threats
2. Virtualised honeypots along with corresponding anomaly detection algorithms produced for several mobile platforms
3. Scalable and interactive visualisation tools supporting security and network events analysis

PICOS

(Privacy and Identity Management for Community Services

www.picos-project.eu

Co-Ordinator:

Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany

1. “Partial Identity” concept, allowing users to reveal only selected personal information as their identity
2. Privacy Advisor tool that guides in managing their privacy and online identity via alerts, prompts and warnings
3. Privacy-friendly advertising technology

POSECCO

(Policy and Security Configuration Management)

www.posecco.eu

Co-Ordinator:

SAP Germany

Focus on security requirements traceability, in particular enabling a traceable and sustainable link between requirements and system configuration settings.

Particular emphasis on ISPs who now have to manually resolve inter-dependencies between high-level requirements and policies and low-level configurations

1. Traceability support supported by PoSecCo models representing functional elements of IT systems, and corresponding models of security-relevant information for each of these elements. This model repository can be further extended with new models suitable for different kinds of policies.
2. An integrated prototype that smoothly consolidates different prototypes developed in the project, including the central model repository (MoVE), collaborative system for eliciting security requirements and high-level policies monitoring (CoSeRMaS), a tool for policies specification and conflict resolution, and a decision support system for security (SDSS) and tools for audit support and configuration validation.

RASEN

(Compositional Risk Assessment and Security Testing of Networked Systems)

www.rasen-project.eu

Co-Ordinator:

SINTEF, Norway

1. Risk-based security testing technique that allows prioritisation of security tests to be executed based on the result of risk analysis
2. Test-based risk assessment technique to reduce uncertainty of risk analysis by using results of security testing of the system
3. Legal security risk assessment methodology which will be used by organisations to show that software systems developed are compliant with existing laws and regulations
4. Compositional risk assessment methodology that allows execution of risk assessment on large systems in a modular way

SYSSEC

(A European Network of Excellence in Managing Threats and Vulnerabilities in the Future Internet: Europe for the World)

www.syssec-project.eu

Co-Ordinator:

FORTH-ICS, Greece

1. Various tools supporting dynamic mobile malware detection, in particular Andrubis, a dynamic analysis environment for Android applications produced within the project.
2. Tool provides a publicly available submission interface for security researchers and mobile users
3. Other outputs include an EU systems research roadmap and common curriculum in security for EU universities

TAMPRES

(TAMper Resistant Sensor Node)

www.tampres.eu

Co-Ordinator:

IHP Innovations for High Performance Microelectronics, Germany

1. Secure development process for microcontrollers that enable resistance to physical attacks, fault injection and side-channel attacks
2. A number of security engines such as cryptographic engines and hashing engines
3. Secure wireless interface for microcontrollers
4. Secure memory mechanism to run attested code
5. Attack resistant TAMPRES architecture that securely integrates all developed components

TRESSCA

(TRustworthy Embedded systems for Secure Cloud Computing Applications)

www.trescca.eu

Co-Ordinator:

OFFIS, Germany

1. Secure client platform that is able to securely process sensitive data in a fully transparent manner, whereby cloud providers outsource computation primitives necessary in order to perform operations on locally stored user data
2. Prototype implementation (hardware and software components) of the secure client, along with an accompanying ecosystem
3. Approach to securely migrate virtual machines from one platform to another

TRESPASS

(Technology-supported Risk Estimation by Predictive Assessment of Socio-technical Security)

www.trespass-project.eu

Co-Ordinator:

University of Twente, Netherlands

Focus on identifying and protecting against information security threats and improving existing risk management methods – delivering an Attack Navigator tool that will be able to automatically predict and prioritise attacks, and evaluate benefit of possible countermeasures.

1. Attack Navigator tool that will be able to provide a map of existing system components and identify potential attack avenues and their impact – as well as evaluate the benefits of countermeasures against the detected vulnerabilities.
2. Threats identified by the Attack Navigator will not only be technical threats but also social (social engineering attack opportunities).

UAN

(Underwater Acoustic Network)

www.ua-net.eu

Co-Ordinator:

CINTAL Portugal

1. UAN acoustic modems, gateway access point, ground station and accompanying software
2. Full UAN Network Demonstrator

UTRUSTIT

(Usable TRUST in the Internet of Things)

www.utrustit.cure.at

Co-Ordinator:

CURE Austria

1. Trust Feedback Toolkit (TFT) enabling the user to administer relevant devices and gain an understanding of their potential to transmit private information
2. Virtual environment implementation comprising various devices where users can navigate and interact with such devices.
3. Investigation of legal and ethical constraints for IoT and TFT

VIKING

(Vital infrastructure, networks, information and control systems management)

Co-Ordinator:

ABB Germany

Focus on investigation of cyberthreats on SCADA systems controlling electricity supply, and proposed mitigation against exploits of these threats

Development of holistic framework for identification and assessment of SCADA vulnerabilities and estimation of societal consequences from power breakdowns.

1. System for running model-based SCADA risk assessment on systems
2. Development of quantitative metrics for different control system solutions
3. Vulnerability estimations for key higher order applications (e.g. State Estimators, Automatic Generation Control)
4. Simulators for calculation of economic and non-economic consequences of electrical blackouts
5. Testbeds for simulating and testing SCADA system attacks

Improvement Area #1: User Requirements and Scenario Gathering

Stakeholders involved in R&D and innovation technology projects have expressed several concerns around the process of requirements gathering within such projects. 

For example, one criticism is that scenarios are defined at a very high level (often under extreme time pressure) at project proposal stage, based on the assumption that detailed use cases with high commercial impact will emerge during the actual project. In experience the latter outcome rarely happens, leading to use cases being developed at project time that are often weak and of poor commercial potential at best, or are even fabricated to meet project deliverable requirements in worst cases. Also, careful consideration of relevant business and legal contexts and existing relevant procedures may be weak in detail or lacking altogether.

Another common issue is that an insufficient number use cases are generated, particularly across a sufficiently broad number of separate target end-users to allow assessment of the scale of the problem at hand, to determine the ranking and extent of the issue being tackled, and ultimately if the problem is worth solving and is a priority to invest in, leading to the best potential for commercial impact. Hence business requirements developed should include a commercial innovation focus as a priority, alongside traditional functional requirements.  

Another issue is that prior to project funding being issued, the strength of the end-user’s commitment to the project is often not sufficiently evaluated, nor is the degree to which the user scenarios and problem areas are of a commercial priority to them. This is highly important as it will ultimately determine their motivation of those end users to support refinement of those scenarios during the project, their desire to stay engaged throughout longer term project duration, and ultimately their ability to implement the project outputs and achieve commercial impact. Establishing the strength of relationship between the end-users and solution providers (particularly the key solution leaders in particular in a collaborative project context) also needs to be evaluated and justified for similar reasons.

Another traditional criticism is that requirements are not defined in a form that is specific enough or implementable for technology development, not just due to issues around technical complexity, but also due to the political barriers and commercial analysis shortcomings indicated above.

Improvements To Consider:  introduce more prescriptive rigour into developing such innovation focused requirements and scenario gathering, potentially making it an explicit funded pre-project in their own right (or at least within a wider Market/Opportunity pre-assessment). Pursuit of further project activities should (partly) be dependent on the ability to define implementable scenarios meeting key requirements outlined above. Funding sources should support instruments around this activity, and should not assume that companies will co-ordinate and pay for this themselves – for many SMEs in particular there is a significant opportunity cost to doing this work.

Similarly target end-users need to be incentivised to participate, either via funded supports that cover their costs within the initiative, and/or also via use of appropriate interview techniques that help prioritise the discussion in areas of highest relevance to them. “Problem interviewing” and “solution interviewing” techniques highlighted by emerging Lean development approaches are one such promising approach.

Introduction of the SME instrument in H2020 is a positive development in support of such aims, particularly the Phase 1 instrument, but it still assumes that a sufficiently concrete idea has been identified upfront, which may not always be the case. IPACSO and similar innovation guidance efforts should build on such instruments, assisting innovators in the practical execution of such approaches, maximising return on internal or public funding invested.     

Improvement Area #2: Market/Opportunity Assessment

While market assessments are a required input within R&D projects both at funding proposal and project delivery stages they are difficult to execute with the right timing or accuracy that will support prioritisation of activities and high commercial impact. Such assessment will ideally be a precursor to any structured requirements gathering mentioned in the previous section above, or at least should be executed highly iteratively and in parallel. Market opportunity assessments within R&D and innovation project initiatives often make claims and figures about an opportunity, but too often these figures are overly broad, are based on secondary data rather than detailed primary analysis, and lack any facilitation that allows third party validation of findings. This is in contrast to norms in the investment community whereby brokers/analysts must provide detailed traceability to real supporting sources that justify their findings such that dealmakers are able to evaluate the deal and opportunity at hand on the basis of such analysis. In balance however, market opportunity assessments that are too stringent may stifle a good project, so evaluations in a longer term, high-risk R&D project scenario should support clarity and pragmatism rather than being overly critical and bureaucratic.... in order to encourage risk-taking and experimentation. Nevertheless any approach must enforce early discipline, ensuring that tough questions are asked early and appropriate efforts are made to answer them.

Improvements To Consider: Again, greater rigour and precision around market opportunity assessments should be introduced as a separate project instrument or activity, and more prescriptive market assessment requirements at an early lifecycle stage are necessary. Without meeting such requirements, remaining core project development funding should not be allocated.  Flexibility in refining project outcomes and proposing alternative project directions on the back of such commercial findings should be encouraged. Real interactions with target customers in line with emerging approaches (e.g. Lean, Customer Development) should be a required part of any market opportunity assessment approach.

In response, policymakers should provide more explicit funding mechanisms that support appropriate resourcing of these efforts, and innovation supports such as IPACSO should build on this offering tactical guidance on how to perform this work. It should not be assumed that SMEs will self-fund such activities to the idea stage, particularly due to the high perceived opportunity costs (particularly if high-value revenue generating personnel are necessary to be deployed at a cost to the business), as well as having available skills or resources to perform such opportunity assessments appropriately. Again, instruments such as the SME Phase 1 instrument are a step in the right direction, although they still may not stretch far enough to support initial pre-idea generation analysis.

Improvement Area #3: R&D Project Opportunity Assessment

Decision making around investment in R&D projects and whether to pursue individual project opportunities has a broad range of potential considerations that should be carefully assessed. This is particularly challenging in collaborative projects that are publicly funded, particularly as a large number of competing agendas and objectives and agendas will exist within project consortia, and resulting project objectives can be unclear and overly broad to accommodate varying interests of parties.

However, for long term R&D projects with high risk factor, such assessment should support clarity and pragmatism, rather than overly focusing on a scorecard approach that may eliminate good ideas and stifle innovation too early. For innovation focused projects that are closer to market, a stricter ratings-based approach will likely be more relevant, particularly incorporating the market opportunity and user scenario requirements highlighted above. 

Improvements to Consider: consider developing appropriate R&D supports such as IPACSO, consider developing appropriate R&D project assessment checklists that facilitate such analysis, using highlighted innovation barriers from past R&D experiences as a guide (such as those highlighted in Table 3.5 in this deliverable)

Example checklist considerations at a broad level might include (1) existence of good use case scenarios and buy-in of target end-users with properly assessed problems and pain-points, and ability to refine and validate within proposal, (2) strong supporting data around business case and commercial opportunity, (3) evaluated understanding of economic costs of technology adoption, (4) understanding of uncertainty risks, (5) upfront understanding of likely kind(s) of innovation that will be developed, i.e. radical, incremental, or process-oriented, (6) estimate of likely technical difficulty to be encountered in developing solutions, (7) challenges around integrating with relevant business procedures and legal context (8) ability to put practical exploitation and validation activities in place, and ability to demonstrate commercial impact in real terms.    

Improvement Area #4: Validation and Exploitation

While the majority of technology research project activities focus on producing research outputs and results, a significant gap typically exists between the output state of those results and making them ready for practical use, i.e. moving from prototype to actual production use. While plans around defining market opportunities and user requirements are viewed as not being done early enough, existing R&D proposal requirements are also viewed as being overly prescriptive around defining detailed validation and exploitation plans at too early a stage, forcing project leaders to promise too many detailed activities and impact objectives that may no longer be viable once technology development aspects are completed.

Feedback from some R&D projects also highlights difficulties in maintaining and updating prototype outputs after a project is complete, thereby limiting their sustained use.

Improvements to Consider:  introducing more flexibility into post-project commercial planning is viewed as an important goal, leading some participants to propose separating the problem solving aspects of research work and the exploitation and validation tasks in separate projects, with the latter potentially involving a smaller number of partners. Pooling innovation outputs across multiple complementary projects into a unified exploitation/validation project instrument may also be another option. Guidance on how to combine product and service innovation offerings more effectively may assist in overcoming some commercialisation barriers.

While such recommendations are beyond the remit of specific innovation support requirements, getting other upfront planning activities right at an earlier stage should make it much easier to provide more meaningful and relevant exploitation and validation activities.