IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jrisks/v9y2021i7p133-d593514.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mathematical Model for Choosing Counterparty When Assessing Information Security Risks

Author

Listed:
  • Andrey Koltays

    (Department of Complex Information Security of Computer Systems, Tomsk State University of Control Systems and Radioelectronics, 634050 Tomsk, Russia)

  • Anton Konev

    (Department of Complex Information Security of Computer Systems, Tomsk State University of Control Systems and Radioelectronics, 634050 Tomsk, Russia)

  • Alexander Shelupanov

    (Department of Complex Information Security of Computer Systems, Tomsk State University of Control Systems and Radioelectronics, 634050 Tomsk, Russia)

Abstract

The need to assess the risks of the trustworthiness of counterparties is increasing every year. The identification of increasing cases of unfair behavior among counterparties only confirms the relevance of this topic. The existing work in the field of information and economic security does not create a reasonable methodology that allows for a comprehensive study and an adequate assessment of a counterparty (for example, a developer company) in the field of software design and development. The purpose of this work is to assess the risks of a counterparty’s trustworthiness in the context of the digital transformation of the economy, which in turn will reduce the risk of offenses and crimes that constitute threats to the security of organizations. This article discusses the main methods used in the construction of a mathematical model for assessing the trustworthiness of a counterparty. The main difficulties in assessing the accuracy and completeness of the model are identified. The use of cross-validation to eliminate difficulties in building a model is described. The developed model, using machine learning methods, gives an accurate result with a small number of compared counterparties, which corresponds to the order of checking a counterparty in a real system. The results of calculations in this model show the possibility of using machine learning methods in assessing the risks of counterparty trustworthiness.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrey Koltays & Anton Konev & Alexander Shelupanov, 2021. "Mathematical Model for Choosing Counterparty When Assessing Information Security Risks," Risks, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-13, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jrisks:v:9:y:2021:i:7:p:133-:d:593514
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/9/7/133/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/9/7/133/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michele Bonollo & Luca Di Persio & Luca Mammi & Immacolata Oliva, 2017. "Estimating the Counterparty Risk Exposure by using the Brownian Motion Local Time," Papers 1704.03244, arXiv.org.
    2. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    3. Bellotti, Anthony & Brigo, Damiano & Gambetti, Paolo & Vrins, Frédéric, 2021. "Forecasting recovery rates on non-performing loans with machine learning," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 428-444.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Flavio Martins & Maria Fatima Almeida & Rodrigo Calili & Agatha Oliveira, 2020. "Design Thinking Applied to Smart Home Projects: A User-Centric and Sustainable Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-27, December.
    2. Jochen Wulf, 2020. "Development of an AHP hierarchy for managing omnichannel capabilities: a design science research approach," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(1), pages 39-68, April.
    3. Wu, Zhangsheng & Li, Yue & Wang, Rong & Xu, Xu & Ren, Dongyang & Huang, Quanzhong & Xiong, Yunwu & Huang, Guanhua, 2023. "Evaluation of irrigation water saving and salinity control practices of maize and sunflower in the upper Yellow River basin with an agro-hydrological model based method," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 278(C).
    4. D’Inverno, Giovanna & Carosi, Laura & Romano, Giulia & Guerrini, Andrea, 2018. "Water pollution in wastewater treatment plants: An efficiency analysis with undesirable output," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(1), pages 24-34.
    5. Nermin Kişi, 2019. "A Strategic Approach to Sustainable Tourism Development Using the A’WOT Hybrid Method: A Case Study of Zonguldak, Turkey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-19, February.
    6. Ayodele, T.R. & Ogunjuyigbe, A.S.O. & Odigie, O. & Munda, J.L., 2018. "A multi-criteria GIS based model for wind farm site selection using interval type-2 fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: The case study of Nigeria," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 1853-1869.
    7. V. Srinivasan & G. Shainesh & Anand K. Sharma, 2015. "An approach to prioritize customer-based, cost-effective service enhancements," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(14), pages 747-762, October.
    8. Patricija Bajec & Danijela Tuljak-Suban, 2019. "An Integrated Analytic Hierarchy Process—Slack Based Measure-Data Envelopment Analysis Model for Evaluating the Efficiency of Logistics Service Providers Considering Undesirable Performance Criteria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-18, April.
    9. Abareshi, Maryam & Zaferanieh, Mehdi, 2019. "A bi-level capacitated P-median facility location problem with the most likely allocation solution," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 1-20.
    10. Datu Buyung Agusdinata & Wenjuan Liu & Sinta Sulistyo & Philippe LeBillon & Je'anne Wegner, 2023. "Evaluating sustainability impacts of critical mineral extractions: Integration of life cycle sustainability assessment and SDGs frameworks," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 27(3), pages 746-759, June.
    11. Xinxin Liu & Xiaosheng Wang & Haiying Guo & Xiaojie An, 2021. "Benefit Allocation in Shared Water-Saving Management Contract Projects Based on Modified Expected Shapley Value," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 35(1), pages 39-62, January.
    12. Sushil, 2019. "Efficient interpretive ranking process incorporating implicit and transitive dominance relationships," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 283(1), pages 1489-1516, December.
    13. Kokaraki, Nikoleta & Hopfe, Christina J. & Robinson, Elaine & Nikolaidou, Elli, 2019. "Testing the reliability of deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods using building performance simulation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 991-1007.
    14. Hossein Yousefi & Saheb Ghanbari Motlagh & Mohammad Montazeri, 2022. "Multi-Criteria Decision-Making System for Wind Farm Site-Selection Using Geographic Information System (GIS): Case Study of Semnan Province, Iran," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-27, June.
    15. Moumita Palchaudhuri & Sujata Biswas, 2016. "Application of AHP with GIS in drought risk assessment for Puruliya district, India," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 84(3), pages 1905-1920, December.
    16. Kadir Kaan GÖNCÜ & Onur ÇETIN, 2022. "Evaluation Of Location Selection Criteria For Coordination Management Centers And Logistic Support Units In Disaster Areas With Ahp Method," Prizren Social Science Journal, SHIKS, vol. 6(2), pages 15-23, August.
    17. González, Marta Ramos & Ureña, Antonio Partal & Fernández-Aguado, Pilar Gómez, 2023. "Forecasting for regulatory credit loss derived from the COVID-19 pandemic: A machine learning approach," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    18. Kik, M.C. & Claassen, G.D.H. & Meuwissen, M.P.M. & Smit, A.B. & Saatkamp, H.W., 2021. "Actor analysis for sustainable soil management – A case study from the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    19. D. K. Choudhury, 2019. "Standard Critical Path and Selection of Most Economic and Quality Contractors for Construction of Thermal Power Plant: A Case Study in NTPC," Metamorphosis: A Journal of Management Research, , vol. 18(2), pages 103-118, December.
    20. Choudhary, Devendra & Shankar, Ravi, 2012. "An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 510-521.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jrisks:v:9:y:2021:i:7:p:133-:d:593514. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.