## 4 Evaluation
### Questionnaire
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Category** & **Process** & **Quality** & **Question** & **Min** & **Max** & **Average** & **Process** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{**Category**} & \multirow{8}{*}{**Reliability**} & Q6. CB-PDO is based on MITRE ATT\&CK, CAPEC, CWE, and CVE, a globally accessible knowledge base for cyberattacks and techniques. Do you think this method can help you with the reliability of the APT element analysis results? & 8 & 10 & 9 \\ \cline{2-8}  & & & Q7. MITRE ATT\&CK, CAPEC, CWE, and CVE, the knowledge base for cyberattacks, are constantly updated with new attack techniques, tactics, and more. & 7 & 8 & 7.66 \\ \cline{2-8}  & & & Q6. CB-PDO is based on MITRE ATT\&CK, CAPEC, CWE, and CVE, a globally accessible knowledge base for cyberattacks and techniques. Do you think this method can help you with the reliability of the APT element analysis results? & 6 & 9 & 7.33 \\ \cline{2-8}  & & & Q10. Do you think using Jaccard similarity as the default baseline helps you measure the similarities between cases and reason similar cases? & 5 & 8 & 6.33 \\ \cline{2-8}  & & & Q11. In addition to Jaccard similarity, review the five rules to consider the similarity between attack techniques. Do you think the five rules help to differentiate between cases using the similarities of the cases? & 5 & 8 & 6.33 \\ \cline{2-8}  & & & Q12. Can selecting goals and targets as elements for case matching help differentiate between cases? & 7 & 7 & 7 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{**Case** reuse} & \multirow{8}{*}{**Seitability**} & Q13. This proposed method provides a process to help you decide whether to reuse your security requirements. Can this help you choose the right security requirements? & 5 & 8 & 6.66 \\ \cline{2-8}  & & & Q14. Does this help you decide whether to reuse your security requirements? & 7 & 7 & 7 \\ \cline{2-8}  & & & Q15. The solution is based on MITRE and STIGs guidelines and previous research. Can this help you deliver reliable and appropriate results? & 7 & 9 & 7.66 & 6.86 \\ \cline{2-8}  & & & Q16. The proposed method provides users with the ability to choose to reuse only a subset of the recommended security requirements list. Can this help you reuse your security requirements? & 5 & 7 & 6.33 \\ \cline{2-8}  & & & Understandability & Q17. Determine whether to reuse security requirements based on the security requirements information provided. Can this help you make decisions about reusing security requirements? & 5 & 8 & 6.66 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{**Case** revision} & \multirow{8}{*}{**Difference** analysis**} & Q18. The proposed method provides the user with relevant materials to assist in making decisions. Do you think this will help you determine the optimal security requirements? & 7 & 7 & 7 \\ \cline{2-8}  & & & Q19. Can the user understand the tactical differences between cases and help correct security requirements? & 6 & 9 & 7.33 \\ \cline{2-8}  & & & Q20. The method enables you to create security requirements based on attack components obtained through APT element analysis based on differences in information between cases. Can this help users understand case-to-case tactical differences and create security requirements? & 8 & 8 & 8 & 8 \\ \cline{2-8}  & & & Q21. Case retention expands the CB-PDO knowledge base and can provide solutions for new attacks. Can these operational methods help to derive optimized security requirements that reflect the APT characteristics for this study? & 7 & 9 & 8.33 \\ \cline{2-8}  & & & Q22. Do you think the attack campaign component is appropriate as a configuration for saving new cases? & 8 & 9 & 8.33 \\ \cline{2-8}  & & & Q23. Repeated CBR improves analysis and prevention of different APIs. Can this process help & 7 & 9 & 8 \\ \cline{2-8}  & & & Q24. Can our proposed method be used as a complement to existing requirement derivation methods? & 8 & 9 & 8.66 \\ \cline{2-8}  & & & Replaceability & Q25. Can our proposed method be used to replace existing requirement derivation methods? & 6 & 8 & 7 \\ \cline{2-8}  & & & Q25. Can our proposed method be used to replace existing requirement derivation methods? & 6 & 8 & 7 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}