Comparison guide
STRIDE vs PASTA
Compare threat categorization with a broader attack-simulation process. Choose methods based on device context and evidence needs, not a promised submission outcome.
Side-by-side breakdown
| Dimension | STRIDE | PASTA |
|---|---|---|
| Origin | Microsoft, 1999. | Process for Attack Simulation and Threat Analysis, 2012. |
| Type | Threat-categorization mnemonic (6 threat types). | Seven-stage risk-centric methodology. |
| Inputs | Data-flow diagram of the system. | Business objectives + technical scope + threat intelligence. |
| Effort per device | Depends on architecture, interfaces, evidence availability, and review scope. | Depends on technical scope, objectives, workshops, and analysis depth. |
| Output | Threat list mapped to STRIDE categories with mitigations. | Attack scenarios with business-impact scoring and mitigation roadmap. |
| Method selection | A practical method for classifying threats on data-flow diagrams; not an FDA-mandated method. | A broader process where objectives and attack simulation are useful; not limited to a device class. |
| Tooling | Microsoft Threat Modeling Tool, OWASP Threat Dragon, IriusRisk. | IriusRisk, ThreatModeler (with custom PASTA templates). |
When to use which
Blue Goat uses STRIDE on current data-flow diagrams to classify threats and connect them to controls and test evidence. Classification remains separate from exploitability and risk scoring.
Consider broader attack simulation when it answers an identified analysis need. Device class alone does not establish the method or depth required; patient-harm evidence remains manufacturer-owned.
Frequently asked questions
Keep exploring
Ready when you are
Secure your device before it reaches patients.
30-minute strategy session. No cost, no commitment - just answers from people who've supported 275+ FDA submissions, with zero cybersecurity rejections.