JP2007122655A - Security management system - Google Patents

Abstract

<P>PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To provide a security management system capable of preventing an operation error by a worker in advance. <P>SOLUTION: The security management system 10 has: a worker data base 1 which records a learning history 1A and a work history 1B of the worker who accesses an information system 100; a command execution monitoring part 2 which detects a command which the worker attempts to execute in the information processing system 100; a skill level determination part 3 which reads worker information regarding the execution of the command from the worker data base 1 to determine a skill level of the worker to the execution of the command; a risk determination part 5 which collates the determined skill level to a criterion generated by an error analysis part 4 to determine severity of a risk supposed to be generated in the information processing system 100 and a command execution prohibition part 6 which prohibits the execution of the command when it is determined that a serious risk can be generated. <P>COPYRIGHT: (C)2007,JPO&INPIT

Description

  The present invention relates to a security management system, and more particularly to a security management system for an information processing system.

  One of the threats to information processing system security is unauthorized intrusion from the outside. In order to prevent this, a security management system is provided in which a security policy for restricting access to the outside is defined and whether or not the security policy is observed is provided (for example, see Patent Document 1).

  On the other hand, as a threat that occurs inside the information processing system, the operation tool is mistakenly operated due to insufficient understanding of the system operator's operation commands, and data stored in the information processing system is destroyed. It is done. Therefore, the system operator is educated to improve the understanding of command operations. As one of the educational methods, e-learning is used (for example, refer to Patent Document 2).

However, even if e-learning or the like is used for education, there is a possibility that the user may forget the contents of the education and cause an operation error when the period until the system is actually accessed is long. Moreover, when the proficiency level of the system operation differs for each worker due to a difference in work frequency or the like, there is a high possibility that an operator with a low proficiency level will make a mistake.
JP 2004-362075 A (page 3-4, FIG. 1) JP 2004-287094 A (Page 5-6, FIG. 1)

  SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION An object of the present invention is to provide a security management system that can prevent operation mistakes by an operator in advance.

  According to one aspect of the present invention, a learning database regarding a command operation of a worker who accesses the information processing system, a worker database in which the work history is recorded, and the worker tries to access the information processing system for execution. Command execution monitoring means for detecting a command, and a proficiency level for reading the learning history and the work history related to the command detected by the command execution monitoring means from the worker database to determine the skill level of the worker for the command execution A risk determining unit that determines a severity of a risk that is expected to occur in the information processing system when the command is executed based on a determination result of the proficiency level determining unit; and the risk determining unit is critical If the risk is determined to occur, the command to be executed Security management system is provided which is characterized by having a command execution inhibiting means for inhibiting the execution of.

  According to the present invention, it is possible to prevent an operator from making an operation error in advance, so that the security of the information processing system can be improved.

  Embodiments of the present invention will be described below with reference to the drawings.

  FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an example of the configuration of the security management system according to the first embodiment of the present invention. The security management system 10 of the present embodiment is provided to prevent a threat such as data destruction from occurring in the information processing system 100 due to an erroneous operation of command execution in the information processing system 100.

  The security management system 10 includes a worker database 1 that records the history of workers accessing the information processing system 100, and a command execution monitoring unit that monitors the command input of the worker and detects the command that the worker is about to execute. 2 and reading the worker database 1 to analyze the skill level determination unit 3 that determines the skill level of the worker with respect to the command that the worker is going to execute, and the command operation mistake that has occurred in the past in the information processing system 100 The error analysis unit 4 that generates a risk determination criterion for each command and the determination result of the proficiency level determination unit 3 is compared with the determination criterion generated by the error analysis unit 4 to execute the command that the operator is trying to execute A risk determination unit 5 that determines the severity of the risk that is expected to occur in the information processing system 100 when When the tough 5 serious risk is determined to occur includes a command execution prohibition unit 6 for prohibiting the execution of commands that the operator is trying to perform, the.

  In the worker database 1, a past learning history 1 </ b> A related to command operations and a work history 1 </ b> B in which command execution history and error occurrence history are written are recorded for each worker.

  FIG. 2 is a flowchart showing a procedure of risk determination operation in the security management system 10.

  When the worker starts accessing the information processing system 100, the security management system 10 acquires the worker name from the information processing system 100 (step S01).

  Subsequently, the command execution monitoring unit 2 monitors the command input of the worker, and detects the command name of the command that the worker intends to execute (step S02).

  Based on the command name detected by the command execution monitoring unit 2, the proficiency level determination unit 3 reads the learning history 1A and work history 1B from the worker database 1 as worker information regarding the command that the worker intends to execute (step S1). S03).

  The proficiency level determination unit 3 calculates the elapsed time since the worker learned about the command from the learning history 1A, and calculates the execution frequency of the command and the occurrence frequency of mistakes from the work history 1B. As a result, for example, when the elapsed time after learning about the command is long and the execution frequency of the command is low, or when the occurrence frequency of mistakes during the command execution is high, the operator of the command It is determined that the proficiency level is low (step S04).

  Subsequently, the risk determination unit 5 compares the proficiency level determined by the proficiency level determination unit 3 with the risk determination standard set for each command, and determines the risk associated with the execution of the command (step). S05).

  Here, the risk criterion is set based on the analysis result of past mistakes by the mistake analysis unit 4.

  FIG. 3 shows a procedure for generating risk judgment criteria in the error analysis unit 4.

  The error analysis unit 4 collects information on errors that have occurred in the information processing system 100 due to command execution from the information processing system 100 (step S11).

  Next, the correlation between the command and the damage caused by the execution error of the command is obtained from the collected information, the risk for each command is analyzed (step S12), and the risk criterion for each command is generated (step S13).

  The risk criterion is set so that a command having a greater damage when a mistake is made requires a higher skill level. Therefore, when trying to execute a command that requires a high level of proficiency, if the proficiency level of the worker does not reach the standard, the risk determination unit 5 determines that the risk is high.

  Returning to FIG. 2, when the risk determination unit 5 determines that the risk is high in step S05 (YES), the command execution prohibition unit 6 prohibits the information processing system 100 from executing the command (step S06). ).

  On the other hand, when the risk determination unit 5 determines that the risk is not large in step S05 (NO), the command execution prohibition unit 6 permits the execution of the command in the information processing system 100 (step S07).

  According to the present embodiment, for the command that the worker is going to execute, the risk to the information processing system is determined based on the skill level of the worker, and when the risk is determined to be large, Command execution can be prohibited. As a result, it is possible to prevent damage such as data destruction that occurs in the information processing system due to the operation of the command of an operator with a low level of proficiency. In addition, since the proficiency level required for the operator can be set for each command, the security level can be kept above a certain standard.

  FIG. 4 is a block diagram illustrating an example of the configuration of the security management system according to the second embodiment of the present invention. The security management system 20 of the present embodiment is obtained by adding a relearning instruction unit 7 to the security management system 10 of the first embodiment, and operates in cooperation with the e-learning system 200. 4, blocks having functions equivalent to those in FIG. 1 are denoted by the same reference numerals as those in FIG. 1, and detailed description thereof is omitted here.

  When the command execution prohibition unit 61 in the security management system 20 of the present embodiment commands the information processing system 100 to prohibit command execution, the command execution prohibition unit 61 transmits information on the command name and the worker name to the relearning instruction unit 7.

  In response to this, the re-learning instruction unit 7 instructs the e-learning system 200 to re-learn about the command to the worker.

  Upon receiving an instruction from the relearning instruction unit 7, the e-learning system 200 sends a relearning program regarding the command to the worker, and the certifying unit 201 evaluates whether the answer reaches the qualification standard. If the certification standard is reached, the execution of the command of the worker is certified, and the security management system 20 is notified.

  When there is a notification from the e-learning system 200, the security management system 20 cancels the prohibition of command execution that has been commanded to the information processing system 100.

  FIG. 5 is a flowchart showing the procedure for releasing the command execution prohibition operation in the security management system 20 together with the relearning procedure in the e-learning system 200.

  Upon receiving a re-learning instruction from the re-learning instruction unit 7, the e-learning system 200 sends a re-learning program related to the command to the worker (step S21), and for example, a test answer or the like is given as a learning result. Receive (step S22).

  It is determined whether or not the answer has reached the certification standard (step S23). If the certification standard has not been reached (NO), relearning is repeated until the certification standard is reached.

  If the answer reaches the certification standard (YES), the execution of the command of the worker is certified and notified to the security management system 20.

  When there is a notification from the e-learning system 200, the security management system 20 updates the learning history 1A of the worker database 1 (step S24).

  When the learning history 1A is updated, the proficiency level determination unit 3 reads out the learning history 1A and re-determines the proficiency level of the worker (step S25). In this case, it is determined that the proficiency level has been improved by re-learning.

  In response to the re-determination of the proficiency level, the risk determination unit 5 performs re-determination of the risk (step S26). In this case, it is determined that the risk criterion is reached due to the improvement of the proficiency level.

  In response to this risk re-determination, the command execution prohibition unit 61 cancels the prohibition of command execution that was instructed to the information processing system 100 (step S27).

  According to this embodiment, when the operator's proficiency level is low and execution of a command is prohibited, the operator can re-learn about the command operation. As a result of the relearning, if the skill level of the worker increases, the command execution prohibited state can be canceled.

The block diagram which shows the example of a structure of the security management system which concerns on Example 1 of this invention. The flowchart which shows the procedure of the risk determination operation | movement in the security management system of the Example of this invention. The flowchart which shows the procedure of the risk determination criteria production | generation in the security management system of the Example of this invention. The block diagram which shows the example of a structure of the security management system which concerns on Example 2 of this invention. The flowchart which shows the procedure of command execution prohibition operation cancellation | release in the security management system of Example 2 of this invention.

Explanation of symbols

DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS 1 Worker database 1A Learning history 1B Work history 2 Command execution monitoring part 3 Proficiency level judgment part 4 Miss analysis part 5 Risk judgment part 6, 61 Command execution prohibition part 7 Relearning instruction part 10, 20 Security management system

Claims (5)

A worker database that records learning history and work history of command operations of workers accessing the information processing system;
Command execution monitoring means for detecting a command to be executed by the worker accessing the information processing system;
Proficiency level determination means for reading out the learning history and the work history related to the command detected by the command execution monitoring means from the worker database and determining the proficiency level of the worker for the command execution;
A risk determination unit that determines a severity of a risk that is expected to occur in the information processing system when the command is executed based on a determination result of the proficiency level determination unit;
A security management system comprising: a command execution prohibiting unit that prohibits execution of the command to be executed when the risk determining unit determines that a serious risk occurs.   The security management system according to claim 1, further comprising: a re-learning instruction unit that instructs the worker to re-learn command operation when the command execution prohibiting unit prohibits execution of a command.   In response to an instruction from the re-learning instruction means, a re-learning program relating to the command to be executed is sent to the worker, and an understanding level of the re-learning program is confirmed to authorize the operator to execute the command. The security management system according to claim 2, wherein the security management system is linked with an e-learning system.   The security management system according to claim 3, wherein the command execution prohibition unit cancels the prohibition of the command execution when the e-learning system performs the authorization.   5. The risk determination unit according to claim 1, wherein the risk determination unit determines the severity of the risk based on a determination criterion created by analyzing a mistake that has occurred in response to command execution in the information processing system. The security management system described.

Images