Discrete Event Dynamic Systems

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 161–182 | Cite as

Current-state opacity enforcement in discrete event systems under incomparable observations

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
  • 166 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Special Issue on Diagnosis, Opacity and Supervisory Control of Discrete Event Systems

Abstract

In this paper we tackle the opacity enforcement problem in discrete event systems using supervisory control theory. In particular, we consider the case where the intruder and the supervisor may observe different sets of events and neither of these sets needs to be contained in the other one. Moreover, there may be controllable events that cannot be observed by the supervisor. We propose a finite structure, called an augmented I-observer, to characterize the strings that will not leak the secret. Based on such a structure, a locally optimal supervisor enforcing current-state opacity is designed.

Keywords

Opacity Discrete event systems Supervisory control Finite state automata 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable remarks of an anonymous reviewer who pointed out a way to simplify the approach proposed in an earlier version of the manuscript.

References

  1. Badouel E, Bednarczyk M, Borzyszkowski A, Caillaud B, Darondeau P (2007) Concurrent secrets. Discret Event Dyn Syst 17(4):425–446MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Ben-Kalefa M, Lin F (2011) Supervisory control for opacity of discrete event systems. In: Proceedings of the 49th Annual Allerton conference on communication, control, and computing, pp 1113–1119Google Scholar
  3. Bryans JW, Koutny M, Ryan PY (2005) Modelling opacity using Petri nets. Electron Notes Theor Comput Sci 121:101–115CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Bryans JW, Koutny M, Mazaré L, Ryan PY (2008) Opacity generalised to transition systems. Int J Inf Secur 7(6):421–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Busi N, Gorrieri R (2004) A survey on non-interference with Petri nets. In: Lectures on concurrency and Petri nets. Springer, pp 328–344Google Scholar
  6. Cai K, Zhang R, Wonham W (2015) Relative observability of discrete-event systems and its supremal sublanguages. IEEE Trans Autom Control 60(3):659–670MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Cassandras CG, Lafortune S (2008) Introduction to discrete event systems. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  8. Cassez F, Dubreil J, Marchand H (2009) Dynamic observers for the synthesis of opaque systems. In: Automated technology for verification and analysis. Springer, pp 352–367Google Scholar
  9. Cassez F, Dubreil J, Marchand H (2012) Synthesis of opaque systems with static and dynamic masks. Formal Methods Syst Des 40(1):88–115CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Cho Hangju, Marcus Steven I (1989) On supremal languages of classes of sublanguages that arise in supervisor synthesis problems with partial observation. Mathem Control Signals Syst (MCSS) 2(1):47–69MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Dubreil J, Darondeau P, Marchand H (2008) Opacity enforcing control synthesis. In: Proceedings of the 9th international workshop on discrete event systems. IEEE, pp 28–35Google Scholar
  12. Dubreil J, Darondeau P, Marchand H (2010) Supervisory control for opacity. IEEE Trans Autom Control 55(5):1089–1100MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Falcone Y, Marchand H (2015) Enforcement and validation (at runtime) of various notions of opacity. Discret Event Dyn Syst 25(4):531–570MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Goguen JA, Meseguer J (1982) Security policies and security models. In: Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE symposium on security and privacy, pp 11–20Google Scholar
  15. Hadj-Alouane N, Lafortune S, Lin F (1996) Centralized and distributed algorithms for on-line synthesis of maximal control policies under partial observation. Discret Event Dyn Syst 6(4):379–427CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Hadj-Alouane NB, Lafrance S, Lin F, Mullins J, Yeddes MM (2005) On the verification of intransitive noninterference in mulitlevel security. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B: Cybern 35(5):948–958CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Heymann M, Lin F (1994) On-line control of partially observed discrete event systems. Discret Event Dyn Syst 4(3):221–236CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Lin F (2011) Opacity of discrete event systems and its applications. Automatica 47(3):496–503MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Ramadge PJG, Wonham WM (1989) The control of discrete event systems. Proc IEEE 77(1):81–98CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Reiter MK, Rubin AD (1998) Crowds: anonymity for web transactions. ACM Trans Inf Syst Secur 1(1):66–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ru Y, Cabasino MP, Giua A, Hadjicostis CN (2014) Supervisor synthesis for discrete event systems under partial observation and arbitrary forbidden state specifications. Discret Event Dyn Syst 24(3):275–307MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Saboori A, Hadjicostis CN (2007) Notions of security and opacity in discrete event systems. In: Proceedings of the 46th IEEE conference on decision and control.IEEE, pp 5056–5061Google Scholar
  23. Saboori A, Hadjicostis CN (2008) Verification of initial-state opacity in security applications of DES. In: Proceedings of the 9th International workshop on discrete event systems, pp 328–333Google Scholar
  24. Saboori A, Hadjicostis CN (2012) Opacity-enforcing supervisory strategies via state estimator constructions. IEEE Trans Autom Control 57(5):1155–1165MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Shmatikov V (2004) Probabilistic analysis of an anonymity system. J Comput Secur 12(3):355–377CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Takai S, Oka Y (2008) A formula for the supremal controllable and opaque sublanguage arising in supervisory control. SICE J Control Measur Syst Integr 1(4):307–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tong Y, Li ZW, Seatzu C, Giua A (2015a) Verification of current-state opacity using Petri nets. In: Proceedings of the 2015 American control conference. IEEE, Chicago, pp 1935–1940Google Scholar
  28. Tong Y, Li ZW, Seatzu C, Giua A (2015b) Verification of initial-state opacity in Petri nets. In: Proceedings of the 2015 International conference on decision and control. IEEE, Osaka, pp 344–349Google Scholar
  29. Tong Y, Ma ZY, Li ZW, Seatzu C, Giua A (2016a) Verification of language-based opacity in Petri nets using verifier. In: Proceedings of the American control conference. IEEE, Boston, pp 757–763Google Scholar
  30. Tong Y, Ma Z, Li Z, Seatzu C, Giua A (2016b) Supervisory enforcement of current-state opacity with uncomparable observations. In: Proceedings of the 13th International workshop on discrete event systems, pp 313–318Google Scholar
  31. Tong Y, Li ZW, Seatzu C, Giua A (2017a) Decidability of opacity verification problems in labeled Petri net systems. Automatica 80:48–53MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Tong Y, Li ZW, Seatzu C, Giua A (2017b) Verification of state-based opacity using Petri nets. IEEE Trans Autom Control 62(6):2823–2837MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Ushio T (1999) On-line control of discrete event systems with a maximally controllable and observable sublanguage. IEICE Trans Funda Electron Commun Comput Sci 82(9):1965–1970Google Scholar
  34. Wu YC, Lafortune S (2013) Comparative analysis of related notions of opacity in centralized and coordinated architectures. Discret Event Dyn Syst 23(3):307–339MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Wu YC, Lafortune S (2014) Synthesis of insertion functions for enforcement of opacity security properties. Automatica 50(5):1336–1348MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Wu YC, Lafortune S (2015) Synthesis of opacity-enforcing insertion functions that can be publicly known. In: Proceedings of the 54th IEEE Conference on decision and control, pp 3506–3513Google Scholar
  37. Yin X, Lafortune S (2015) A new approach for synthesizing opacity-enforcing supervisors for partially-observed discrete-event systems. In: Proceedings of the 2015 American control conference. IEEE, Chicago, pp 377–383Google Scholar
  38. Yin X, Lafortune S (2016a) Synthesis of maximally permissive supervisors for partially-observed discrete-event systems. IEEE Trans Autom Control 61(5):1239–1254MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. Yin X, Lafortune S (2016b) A uniform approach for synthesizing property-enforcing supervisors for partially-observed discrete-event systems. IEEE Trans Autom Control 61(8):2140–2154MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhang B, Shu SL, Lin F (2012) Polynomial algorithms to check opacity in discrete event systems. In: Proceedings of the 24th Chinese control and decision conference. IEEE, pp 763–769Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yin Tong
    • 1
  • Zhiwu Li
    • 2
    • 3
  • Carla Seatzu
    • 4
  • Alessandro Giua
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.SISTSouthwest Jiaotong UniversityChengduChina
  2. 2.ISEMacau University of Science and TechnologyTaipaChina
  3. 3.SEMEXidian UniversityXi’anChina
  4. 4.DIEEUniversity of CagliariCagliariItaly
  5. 5.Aix Marseille UniversitéUniversité de ToulonMarseilleFrance

Personalised recommendations