Advertisement

Security Against Communication Network Attacks of Cyber-Physical Systems

  • Públio Macedo Lima
  • Marcos Vinícius Silva Alves
  • Lilian Kawakami Carvalho
  • Marcos Vicente MoreiraEmail author
Article
  • 104 Downloads

Abstract

Communication networks are commonly used to connect sensors, actuators, and controllers to monitor and control cyber-physical systems (CPS). The use of communication networks increases the vulnerability of the CPS to cyber attacks that can drive the system to reach unsafe states. One of the most powerful cyber attacks is the so-called man-in-the-middle attack, where the intruder can observe, hide, create or replace information in the attacked network channel. In a previous paper, we have introduced the definition of NA-Safe controllability, that is related with the capability of detecting intrusions and preventing damages caused by man-in-the-middle attacks in the sensor and/or control communication channels in supervisory control systems. In this paper, we extend our previous work as follows: (i) we prove the correctness of the NA-Safe controllability verification algorithm; (ii) we show how to implement the security module against cyber attacks; (iii) we show that NA-Safe controllability is a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of the security module; and (iv) we present a practical example to illustrate the results of the paper.

Keywords

Cyber-physical systems Security Cyber attacks Discrete-event systems Automata 

References

  1. Baheti, R., & Gill, H. (2011). Cyber-physical systems. In T. Samad & A. Annaswamy (Eds.), The impact of control technology. New York: IEEE Control Systems Society.Google Scholar
  2. Carvalho, L. K., Wu, Y. C., Kwong, R., & Lafortune, S. (2016). Detection and prevention of actuator enablement attacks in supervisory control systems. In 2016 13th international workshop on discrete event systems (WODES) (pp. 298–305). Xi’an.Google Scholar
  3. Carvalho, L. K., Wu, Y. C., Kwong, R., & Lafortune, S. (2018). Detection and mitigation of classes of attacks in supervisory control systems. Automatica, 97, 121–133.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cassandras, C. G., & Lafortune, S. (2008). Introduction to discrete event systems. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Fawzi, H., Tabuada, P., & Diggavi, S. (2014). Secure estimation and control for cyber-physical systems under adversarial attacks. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 59(6), 1454–1467.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Goes, R. M., Kang, E., Kwong, R. H., & Lafortune, S. (2017). Stealthy deception attacks for cyber-physical systems. In Proceedings of the 56th IEEE conference on decision and control (pp. 4224–4230). Melbourne.Google Scholar
  7. Lima, P. M. (2017). Security against network attacks in supervisory control systems. Master’s thesis, Federal University of Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  8. Lima, P. M., Alves, M. V., Carvalho, L. K., & Moreira, M. V. (2017). Security against network attacks in supervisory control systems. In Proceedings of the 20th IFAC world congress (Vol. 50, pp. 12333–12338). Toulouse.Google Scholar
  9. Mo, Y., & Sinopoli, B. (2010). False data injection attacks in control systems. In Preprints of the 1st workshop on secure control systems (pp. 1–6). Stockholm.Google Scholar
  10. Moreira, M. V., Jesus, T. C., & Basilio, J. C. (2011). Polynomial time verification of decentralized diagnosability of discrete event systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 56(7), 1679–1684.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Paoli, A., & Lafortune, S. (2005). Safe diagnosability for fault-tolerant supervision of discrete-event systems. Automatica, 41(8), 1335–1347.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Pasqualetti, F., Dörfler, F., & Bullo, F. (2013). Attack detection and identification in cyber-physical systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 58(11), 2715–2729.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Sampath, M., Sengupta, R., Lafortune, S., Sinnamohideen, K., & Teneketzis, D. (1995). Diagnosability of discrete-event systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 40(9), 1555–1575.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Su, R. (2018). Supervisor synthesis to thwart cyber attack with bounded sensor reading alterations. Automatica, 94, 35–44.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Sundaram, S., & Hadjicostis, C. N. (2011). Distributed function calculation via linear iterative strategies in the presence of malicious agents. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 56(7), 1495–1508.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Thorsley, D., & Teneketzis, D. (2006). Intrusion detection in controlled discrete event systems. In Proceedings of the 45th IEEE conference on decision and control (pp. 6047–6054). San Diego, CA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Brazilian Society for Automatics--SBA 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.COPPE - Electrical Engineering ProgramUniversidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations