Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An overview of network vulnerability modeling approaches

  • Published:
GeoJournal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Assessment and modeling associated with the examination of vulnerability and reliability in network based infrastructure have long been recognized as important and necessary. Recent years have seen a growth of activity in vulnerability modeling given natural disasters, human error and terrorist activities. This is due to increased reliance on networked based systems in our everyday lives, as well as the interconnectedness of a range of infrastructures like telecommunications, transportation, electricity, water, etc. This paper provides an overview of the evolution of modeling approaches to examine network vulnerability. Reviewed approaches are characterized in terms of how system performance is accounted for. Interdiction scenarios for each performance class are discussed, illustrating the unique attributes of the various modeling approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Interdiction is a term that refers to the unintentional or intentional loss of one or more network components.

  2. This could be represented and illustrated using a loop arc. It is not used here to avoid potential confusion.

References

  • Albert, R., Jeong, H., & Barabasi, A. L. (2000). Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature, 406, 378–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arulselvan, A., Commander, C. W., Elefteriadou, L., & Pardalos, P. M. (2009). Detecting critical nodes in sparse graphs. Computers & Operations Research, 36, 2193–2200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baran, P. (1964). On distributed communications networks. IEEE Transactions on Communications Systems, 12, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, G., Carlyle, M., Salmeron, J., & Wood, K. (2006). Defending critical infrastructure. Interfaces, 36, 530–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CBS News. (2010). Death toll rises from massive chile quake. URL: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/27/world/main6249181.shtml (last accessed 3/16/10).

  • Church, R. L., & Scaparra, M. P. (2007). Protecting critical assets: The r-interdiction median problem with fortification. Geographical Analysis, 39, 129–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Church, R. L., Scaparra, M. P., & Middleton, R. S. (2004). Identifying critical infrastructure: The median and covering facility interdiction problems. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 94, 491–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colbourn, C. J. (1987). The Combinatorics of network reliability. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corley, H. W., & Sha, D. Y. (1982). Most vital links and nodes in weighted networks. Operations Research Letters, 1, 157–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demsar, U., Spatenkova, O., & Virrantaus, K. (2008). Identifying critical locations in a spatial network with graph theory. Transactions in GIS, 12, 61–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, L. R., & Fulkerson, D. R. (1962). Flows in networks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulkerson, D. R., & Harding, G. C. (1977). Maximizing the minimum source-sink path subject to a budget constraint. Mathematical Programming, 13, 116–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghare, P. M., Montgomery, D. C., & Turner, W. C. (1971). Optimal interdiction policy for a flow network. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 18, 37–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grubesic, T. H., & Murray, A. T. (2006). Vital nodes, interconnected infrastructures and the geographies of network reliability. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96, 64–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grubesic, T. H., O’Kelly, M. E., & Murray, A. T. (2003). A geographic perspective on commercial internet survivability. Telematics and Informatics, 20, 51–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grubesic, T. H., Matisziw, T. C., Murray, A. T., & Snediker, D. (2008). Comparative approaches for assessing network vulnerability. International Regional Science Review, 31, 88–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Israeli, E., & Wood, R. K. (2002). Shortest-path network interdiction. Networks, 40, 97–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, C., & Smith, J. C. (2007). Algorithms for discrete and continuous multicommodity flow network interdiction problems. IIE Transactions, 39, 15–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matisziw, T. C., & Murray, A. T. (2009). Connectivity change in habitat networks. Landscape Ecology, 24, 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matisziw, T. C., Murray, A. T., & Grubesic, T. H. (2009). Exploring the vulnerability of network infrastructure to interdiction. Annals of Regional Science, 43, 307–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mouawad, J., & V. Bajaj. (2005). Hurricane Katrina: The oil supply; gulf oil operations remain in disarray. The New York Times, September 2, 2005. URL: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9503E4DF1431F931A3575AC0A9639C8B63 (last accessed 3/16/10).

  • Murray, A. T., Matisziw T. C., & Grubesic T. H. (2005). Simulating impacts of network interdiction on O-D flow activity. Paper presented at 52nd North American meeting of the regional science association international, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, 10–12.

  • Murray, A. T., & Grubesic, T. (2007). Reliability and vulnerability in critical infrastructure: A quantitative geographic perspective. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, A. T., Matisziw, T. C., & Grubesic, T. H. (2007). Critical network infrastructure analysis: Interdiction and system flow. Journal of Geographical Systems, 9, 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, A. T., Matisziw, T. C., & Grubesic, T. H. (2008). Methodological overview of network vulnerability analysis. Growth and Change, 39, 573–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myung, Y. S., & Kim, H. J. (2004). A cutting plane algorithm for computing k-edge survivability of a network. European Journal of Operational Research, 156, 579–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scaparraa, M. P., & Church, R. L. (2008a). A bilevel mixed-integer program for critical infrastructure protection planning. Computers & Operations Research, 35, 1905–1923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scaparraa, M. P., & Church, R. L. (2008b). An exact solution approach for the interdiction median problem with fortification. European Journal of Operational Research, 189, 76–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shooman, M. L. (2002). Reliability of computer systems and networks: Fault tolerance, analysis, and design. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snediker, D., Murray, A. T., & Matisziw, T. C. (2008). Decision support for network disruption mitigation. Decision Support Systems, 44, 954–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, L. V., Scaparra M. P., Daskin M. S., & Church R. L. (2006). Planning for disruptions in supply chain networks. INFORMS Tutorials in Operations Research, 234–257.

  • Urban, D., & Keitt, T. H. (2001). Landscape connectivity: A graph-theoretic perspective. Ecology, 82, 1205–1218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wollmer, R. (1964). Removing arcs from a network. Operations Research, 12, 934–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woo, S. (2009). Bridge fix awaits further tests. The Wall Street Journal, October 29, 2009. URL: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125673037933212851.html (last accessed 3/16/10).

  • Wood, R. K. (1993). Deterministic network interdiction. Mathematical and Computer Modeling, 17, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grants No. 0908030 and 0718091. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. GeoDa Center for Geospatial Analysis and Computation, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287-5302, USA

    Alan T. Murray

Authors
  1. Alan T. Murray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alan T. Murray.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Murray, A.T. An overview of network vulnerability modeling approaches. GeoJournal 78, 209–221 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-011-9412-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-011-9412-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation