Advertisement

Survey on synchrophasor data quality and cybersecurity challenges, and evaluation of their interdependencies

  • Aditya SUNDARARAJAN
  • Tanwir KHAN
  • Amir MOGHADASI
  • Arif I. SARWATEmail author
Open Access
Article

Abstract

Synchrophasor devices guarantee situation awareness for real-time monitoring and operational visibility of smart grid. With their widespread implementation, significant challenges have emerged, especially in communication, data quality and cybersecurity. The existing literature treats these challenges as separate problems, when in reality, they have a complex interplay. This paper conducts a comprehensive review of quality and cybersecurity challenges for synchrophasors, and identifies the interdependencies between them. It also summarizes different methods used to evaluate the dependency and surveys how quality checking methods can be used to detect potential cyberattacks. This paper serves as a starting point for researchers entering the fields of synchrophasor data analytics and security.

Keywords

Synchrophasors Data quality Cybersecurity Methodologies 

1 Introduction

Smart grid has complex dependencies between physical and cyber realms [1, 2, 3, 4]. This has been demonstrated by recent attacks on smart grid which is summarized in Table 1 [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. These attacks exploited a limited visibility of the system and inadequate support from reliability coordinators [11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22]. Wide-area measurement systems (WAMS) increase the situation awareness (SA) for operators [23, 24, 25]. WAMS devices that are part of the wide area monitoring, protection, automation and control include phasor measurement units (PMUs) at transmission, frequency disturbance recorders (FDRs) at low-voltage distribution and micro-PMUs (µ−PMUs) for distributed renewables, called synchrophasors [26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35].
Table 1

Summary of the recent cyberattacks on smart grid impacting data quality

Source of attack (Year)

Target of attack

Data quality characteristic impacted

Cybersecurity characteristic impacted

Attack specifics

Vulnerability in network firewall (2001)

California ISO (CAISO) web servers

Consistency, accuracy

Integrity

Poor security configuration during planned maintenance

Stuxnet worm (2010)

Programmable logic controllers (PLCs) at SCADA

Accuracy, consistency, plausibility

Integrity, availability

Exploits zero-day vulnerabilities of PLCs

BlackEnergy (2011)

Human-machine interface of utility grid control systems

Plausibility, origin, accuracy, consistency

Confidentiality, integrity, availability

General electric’s human machine interface (HMI) targeted

Remote access Trojan; watering-hole attack (2014)

Industrial control system (ICS)/SCADA

Plausibility, origin, accuracy, consistency

Confidentiality, integrity, availability

Conducted by dragonfly, energetic bear

Trojan.Laziok reconnaissance malware (2015)

Energy companies

Origin, plausibility

Confidentiality

Gathered information from compromised devices

BlackEnergy3 (2015)

Ukrainian grid control center

Plausibility, origin, accuracy, consistency

Confidentiality, integrity, availability

Lack of SA left 220000+ customers without power

WannaCry ransomware cryptoworm (2017)

Computers running microsoft Windows operating system

Availability, origin

Availability

Used EternalBlue, a vulnerability in older Windows systems

Significant challenges to the implementation of synchrophasors have emerged in communication, data quality and cybersecurity. The existing communication infrastructure is slow, expensive and inflexible. To leverage SA and support timeliness, adequate quality checking methods must be in-place at the phasor data concentrators (PDCs) which aggregate and process raw data and flag corrupt data. Due to their ubiquity, synchrophasors have an increased attack surface. The applications and challenges of synchrophasors are wellresearched [36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41]. However, the challenges of data quality and cybersecurity are considered one independent of the other, when in reality, they are interdependent [42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69]. Further, the literature does not leverage the knowledge of one challenge to address the other. For example, studying the changes to data quality can be key to potentially identify an underlying attack vector or an unexploited vulnerability.

The main contributions of this paper are: ① maps the dependencies between data quality and cybersecurity challenges of synchrophasors; ② reviews the methods to evaluate the challenges; and ③ surveys how data quality checking methods can leverage their observations to detect issues related to security. The paper also provides a high-level overview of synchrophasors, their standards, key applications, and challenges [70, 71, 72, 73]. It is key to know that poor quality can be due to device errors or communication challenges like congestion and packet collision. Similarly, all cyber-attacks do not impact the data, although reduction in quality is one of the biggest observable consequences of a successful attack. A layout of WAMS comprising synchrophasors is shown in Fig. 1. This paper explores the challenges for PMUs at transmission and FDRs at distribution level.
Fig. 1

Layout of smart grid WAMS comprising PMUs, µ-PMUs, FDRs and PDCs

This survey paper considers data quality and cybersecurity as challenges, where each has different issues. Issues are the ways in which the particular challenge manifests when observed. Figure 2 maps the challenges to their corresponding issues. The challenge of quality manifests in three ways: noise, outliers and missingness. Noise can be due to logical inconsistencies in data values or attributes while outliers result from poor integrity and origination. Missing data is a direct consequence of poor completeness and availability. Accuracy is impacted by noise, outliers as well as missingness while plausibility is a characteristic impacted by noise and outliers. These characteristics are discussed in Section 3.1. Cybersecurity manifests as delay/loss, manipulation or theft. While a delay/loss corresponds to a packet delay or drop due to congestion, timeout, buffer fullness or an intentional attack that affects availability, manipulation deals with attacks that alter the information, thereby impacting integrity. Theft captures attacks which compromise the confidentiality of data such as snooping, spoofing or espionage. These attacks occur at different levels of the synchrophasor hierarchy: Device corresponds to the edge devices like PMUs, FDRs, or µ−PMUs, while Aggregator implies Local PDCs or SuperPDCs. Communication refers to the synchrophasor network while Application contains the different power system applications that use synchrophasor data.
Fig. 2

Proposed structure

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 summarizes the architecture, major applications and key challenges of synchrophasors. The characteristics are described in Section 3, and their interdependencies mapped in Section 4. While evaluation methods for data quality and cybersecurity are discussed in Section 4.1, Section 4.2 surveys methods which use data quality characteristics to detect potential cyber-attacks. Section 5 highlights future directions of research in synchrophasor data analytics and cybersecurity.

2 Architecture, applications, challenges

Synchrophasors can be standalone devices with dedicated purposes, or be a part of a larger system like the substations, depending on various functional and operational requirements. With increased penetration of renewables and smart loads, synchrophasors are used at distribution transformers and points of common coupling to study frequency disturbances and harmonics. The architecture of synchrophasor devices are summarized at the device and network levels below.
  1. 1)

    PMU device: It comprises current transformers (CTs) and potential transformers (PTs) that measure current and voltage magnitudes which are then converted to digital data, a microprocessor module that compiles these values, computes phasors, and synchronizes them with the coordinated universal time (UTC) standard reference used by global positioning system (GPS) receivers that acquire a time-lag based on the atomic clock of GPS satellites [23, 74, 75, 76, 77]. They measure local frequency and its rate of change, and can record individual phase voltage and current along with harmonics, negative and zero sequence values [78]. The information paints a dynamic picture of the grid at a given time. PMUs and PDCs transmit measured data as frames [79]. A 16-bit cyclic redundancy check ensures data integrity. PDCs equipped with logging functionality use comma separated values or transient data exchange for data logs, and common format for event data exchange for event logs [80, 81]. The data transfer rate of PMUs, which determine the message processing delays and network latencies, depend greatly on the timing requirements of applications.

     
  2. 2)

    PMU network: If there are multiple PMUs in a substation, Local PDCs aggregate site-level data and then transmit to a SuperPDC. PDCs conduct various data quality checks and set flags according to the issues encountered, log performance, validate, transform, scale and normalize data, and convert between protocols [82]. There is typically a direct interface between PDC and the utility’s SCADA or energy management system. PDCs can be deployed as standalone devices or integrated with other systems in the grid.

     
  3. 3)

    FDR device: The Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the University of Tennessee Knoxville have been leading the FNET/GridEye project since 2004. FDRs have been installed and managed to capture dynamic behaviors of the grid. Although FDRs are essentially PMUs, they are connected at 120 V, and hence incur lower installation costs than traditional PMUs do [83]. FDRs are largely deployed at renewable integration zones of the grid, and measure nearly 1440 samples per second with a hardware accuracy of ±0.5 mHz while PMUs measure between 10 and 240 samples per second and use GPS receivers that have 1µs accuracy for synchronization [84, 85, 86, 87]. Given the availability of an extensive discussion of the architecture by the author of [88, 89], it is beyond the scope of this paper.

     
  4. 4)

    FDR network: FDRs use the internet to send data directly to the central servers for analytics and can provide information on transients, load shedding, breaker reclosing and the switching operations of capacitor banks and load tap changers [87]. Unlike PMUs, FDRs can be installed at buildings and offices.

     
  5. 5)

    Synchrophasor standards: Multiple standards exist for PMU data measurement, transfer and communication, proposed by IEEE, the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST), the North American Electric Reliability Commission (NERC) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) [90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97]. Due to multiple specifications and guidelines, there are possible contradictions in recommendations [70, 71, 72, 73, 98]. A North American SynchroPhasor Initiative (NASPI) report in early 2016 identified the need for standardizing definitions related to synchrophasor data quality and availability by establishing the PMU applications requirements task force (PARTF) [99]. IEEE standard C37.X deals with WAMS, specifically PMUs [82, 100, 101]. These standards are summarized in Table 2 with their core contributions highlighted. A more comprehensive review of the synchrophasor standards is documented in [102].

     
  6. 6)

    Applications: Synchrophasors streamline security, reliability and stability of power systems. They have online and offline applications [103]. Online applications of PMUs include enhancing real-time SA, analyzing faults and disturbances, detecting and appraising oscillations and harmonics that impact power quality, and improving accuracy and reducing computational time of state estimation. Offline applications include congestion management, providing effective protection schemes, benchmarking, system restoration, overload monitoring and dynamic rating, validating the network model of SCADA, and improving overall power quality [25, 104, 105]. Real-time (online) applications of FDRs include frequency monitoring interface integrated with command and control centers in the future for power system health diagnosis to prevent cascading failures, and event trigger module that detects and notifies the mismatch between generation and load caused by frequency variations. Offline applications include event visualization that renders the data read from the even data files [106].

     
  7. 7)

    Challenges: One of the major drawbacks of synchrophasors is the lack of transmission protocol, which makes them vulnerable to spoofing attacks [26]. The existing architecture is not scalable since it entails an initially high investment. NASPI’s research initiative task force (RITT) emphasizes optimal placement as a significant challenge but also one dependent on the nature of applications the utility intends to use them for [18]. The literature has multiple models including but not limited to genetic algorithm, simulated annealing, Tabu search, Madtharads method, particle swarm optimization, artificial neural networks, binary search and binary integer programming to address this challenge [27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 107, 108]. More recently, managing and analyzing large volumes of synchrophasor data has become increasingly challenging. Lack of standardized data management solutions for smart grid has only made this problem more challenging. The ubiquitous presence of these devices has expanded their attack surface, making them vulnerable to different types of attacks. These two challenges are elaborated in the following section since they percolate to applications that directly operate upon the streaming data subject to minimal processing owing to timeliness requirements.

     
Table 2

Various standards and guidelines for synchrophasors

Body

Standard

Core contribution

IEEE

1344-1995

Original parameter definitions for synchrophasors

C37.118-2005

Improved message formats, inclusion of time quality, total vector error (TVE)

C37.239-2010

PMU/PDC event logging

1711-2010

Serial SCADA protection protocol for substation serial link cybersecurity

C37.118.1-2011

PMU measurement provisions, performance requirements

C37.118.2-2011

Synchrophasor data transfer requirements

C37.238-2011

Common profile for applying precision time protocol (PTP) using Ethernet

C37.242-2013

Synchronization, calibration, testing and installation of PMUs for PC

C37.244-2013

PDC functions and requirements for PC and monitoring

C37.111-2013

PMU/PDC data logging using COMFEDE

1686-2013

Procuring, installing and commissioning IED cybersecurity

C37.240-2014

Sound engineering practices for high cybersecurity of substation APC

IEC

61850

Interoperable and adaptable architectures to substation automation

61850-90-5

Requirements for data exchange between PMUs, PDCs, PCs and control center

62351-1,2

Security threats and vulnerabilities in smart grid devices

62351-6

Prescribes digital signature using asymmetric cryptography for sending PMU data

NERC

CIP 002-009

Series of standards to ensure enterprise, field and personnel security

NIST

NISTIR 7628

Provides guidelines for smart grid cybersecurity (including WAMS)

3 Data quality and cybersecurity challenges in synchrophasors

Due to their wide-ranging communication and automation capabilities, the challenges of synchrophasor data quality and cybersecurity have gained prominence.

3.1 Data quality challenges

NERC’s real-time tools best practices task force (RTBPTF) and NASPI’s PARTF impose requirements to ensure synchrophasor data quality [42, 109]. Data quality can be contextualized in different ways, depending on the needs of the concerned domain. For instance, data quality requirements of a smart meter recording energy consumption might differ from those of a net meter at a solar photovoltaic (PV) power plant. NASPI contextualizes synchrophasor data quality to determine “fitness of use” in terms of accuracy and lineage for static data points; lineage, completeness and logical consistency for static datasets; and availability, timeliness and origination for streams of data points [42].

There could be different causes for poor data quality as follow.
  1. 1)

    Device: poor calibration of device, biases due to CT, PT; erroneous filter design, poor synchronization of timing measurements, and issues due to measurement channel;

     
  2. 2)

    Communication: latency exceeding stipulated limits, network congestion, signal interferences and failure of communication nodes;

     
  3. 3)

    Aggregator: data transformation resulting in errors, delayed arrival of packets dropped due to time-limit exceeding, and unwanted duplication or corruption of data during computations;

     
  4. 4)

    Application: storage and maintenance issues, insufficient training size, erroneous manipulations to the data and poor association of context.

     
Although data quality requirements vary with applications, they have been extensively documented [42, 52, 102, 109]. The existing literature on synchrophasor data quality is summarized in Table 3.
Table 3

Summary of existing research in synchrophasor data quality challenges and solutions

Attribute

Challenges

Solutions

Completeness (Device, Aggregator) [42, 50, 110]

PMU/PDC device damage

Faulty PMU-PDC communication

Network error

Database storage error

Data missing for failing to comply with latency and QoS requirements

Acquiring better management techniques

Use of TCP protocol to re-transmit the lost data packets at the cost of timeliness

Adjusting the synchrophasor frame rate by increasing the wait time at PDC

Measurement accuracy (Device) [42, 43, 110, 111, 112, 113]

Expected signal differs from measured signal due to harmonic interference

Introduction of noise to data

Improving phase error using filtering techniques

NIST calibration per Standard C37.118-2005

Omnidirectional antennas

Context-based reconstruction of missing data

Network time protocol (NTP), e-Loran and

chip scale atomic clock (CSAC)

Attribute accuracy (Device, Aggregator, Communication) [42, 44]

Measured vs actual timestamp discrepancy due to satellite timing error; disagreement between encoded and actual location of PMU

Development of linear state estimation tools Avoiding timestamp discrepancy by modifying

real-time clock element

Using OMP-based identification, BB algorithm to solve PMU location discrepancies

Plausibility and availability (Communication, Application) [47, 48, 49, 51, 114, 115]

Impact of measurement system on individual data points

Data inaccessibility due to high network

latency or device failure

Delayed data arrival due to increased

routing traffic

Use of electrical data recorder (EDR) tools for capturing high-rate time series data, data storage and analysis

A more lenient time limit could be set for noncritical application usage

Latency-aware application design

Origination (Device, Aggregator, Communication, Application) [42, 53, 116, 117]

Poor standard interpretation, implementation

Misalignment, erroneous compression

Latency, loss of communication nodes

Data corruption due to delivery time of

PDC exceeding permissible slot

Network unavailability to process incoming data streams

Redundancy in communication by using wireless and wired connections

Lagrange interpolating polynomial method

Data substitution, imputation, interpolation and extrapolation

Stochastic forecasting with prediction error

minimization (PEM)

Logical consistency (Aggregator, Communication) [42]

Data transmitted contains no headers

Sampling rate of data changed at PMU without being adjusted at PDC

Data duplication while processing

Data from different PMUs with incorrect timestamps

Logical consistency can be ensured by maintaining the PMU registries and data protocols

  1. 1)

    Completeness: focuses on the gaps between different values, accounts for missing values [42]. The attributes of completeness defined at device and aggregator-levels are: gap rate—number of gaps in data per unit time; mean gap size—mean of the length of known gaps; and largest known gap—length of the largest known gap among the different gaps. While completeness is impacted by device malfunction, packet drops and communication link failure, the literature does not recognize the possibility of an attack behind such causes.

     
  2. 2)

    Accuracy: can be of the value or attribute, primarily measured in total vector error (TVE), which according to IEEE standard C37.118, is the vector difference between the measured and expected phasor value (magnitude, angle and frequency). Accuracy is categorized into that of: data values—impacted by factors like the difference between expected and observed signals or the introduction of noise to the data within the synchrophasor; and data attributes—affected by factors like accuracy of the measured timestamp, agreement between encoded and actual location coordinates of the device, and alignment of the location recorded in the power system topology with its actual location [46].

     
  3. 3)

    Plausibility and Availability: Measurement specifiers are the attributes of data which describe whether the process of measuring some phenomenon of the power system (observed value) and calculating its value (expected value) are documented effectively in terms of standard units to a given precision and are within a stated confidence interval [46, 48]. These specifiers have decisive sub-attributes influencing the qualitative value of data: data representing the measurement of quality or condition of the grid, and data represented in the form of SI units up to 3 decimal places with a confidence interval included.

    Network availability plays an important role in streaming data [49], and in-turn affects data availability. In case of high network latency, the incoming data streams from different synchrophasors get delayed or lost, causing applications to perceive them as missing or incomplete. Hence, network availability can be considered an indirect attribute affecting quality. This can be mitigated if the overlying applications are programmed to account for the delays, or if a more lenient waiting time limit is set. However, the second solution is dependent on the kind of applications the synchrophasors cater to. The latency requirements for synchrophasors recommended by the standards are very stringent.

     
  4. 4)

    Origination: is the source from which the data is measured. Its trustworthiness is associated with the background and source. Its attributes are as follow. ① Point of origin: the class of device from where the data originated (measurement (M) or performance (P) for PMUs), the standard followed by the device, and any data manipulation or standardization techniques through which the data passes [42, 118]; ② Coverage: physical location of the device based on its geospatial or electrical topology location [44, 45]; ③ Transformation applied to the data at the device, aggregator or application level.

     
  5. 5)

    Consistency: determines how agreeable the data is with the overall structure of its type. Incompatibility of attributes in terms of measurement rates or header labeling between datasets results in outliers, leading to an inconsistent result from an application. The attributes of consistency are as follow. ① Header frame consistency: consistency of the header frame of the device. This could be categorized into: persistence of PMU header that states whether the PMU header structure is consistent over time, and persistence of PDC header that states whether the PDC header structure is consistent over time. ② Data frame consistency: consistency of data frames of the device. This could be categorized into: persistence of PMU data frame that states whether the PMU data frame structure is consistent over time, and persistence of the PDC data frame that states whether the PDC data frame structure is consistent over time. ③ Order consistency of data frames: whether the order in which the data frames are recorded is consistent in the device. ④ Consistency in compliance to standards recommended for PMU and all the devices associated with it. ⑤ Consistency of reporting rate: whether data reporting rate is consistent across all devices.

    Emerging research in this area has lately focused on determining solutions for ensuring data quality. These solutions include using omnidirectional antennas to improve GPS availability, context-aware determination of missing data streams using accurate timing information, network time protocol (NTP) and associated chip scale atomic clocks (CSACs) as backups for synchronization when GPS fails, imputation, interpolation and extrapolation, stochastic forecasting with prediction error minimization (PEM) and data substitution [52].

     
  6. 6)

    Evaluation of quality: Methods to evaluate quality is discussed in Section 4.1. The approach for performance evaluation is to first study the impacts of device calibration and network conditions on quality, then examine how poor quality reduces the application performance [42]. Two effective methods are proposed to evaluate the impact of quality on performance: ① Benchmarking that tests an application multiple times with numerous erroneous datasets in contrast to those with no known errors, and ② Standardization that documents, for each application, the level of tolerable errors.

     

3.2 Cybersecurity challenges

Synchrophasors cater to applications like state estimation, contingency analysis and optimal power flow that need real-time high-resolution data measurement, communication and analytics [119]. Therefore, a successful attack on these devices might cause erroneous SA or cascading failures [56, 120]. Yet, many industrial organizations do not consider synchrophasors as critical cyber assets. Recent cyberattacks on the smart grid in Table 1 mostly used powerful malware like worms, viruses or Trojan horse, but a few attacks like the one on the Pacific Gas & Electric transmission substation relied on physical means. These attacks jeopardized not just the availability of power but also that of control data (information). In Table 4, cybersecurity of synchrophasors are categorized into: ① Device, Aggregator; ② Communication; and ③ Control center application.
Table 4

Summary of existing research in synchrophasor cybersecurity challenges and solutions

Level

Challenges

Solutions

Device, Aggregator [54, 55, 97, 102, 110, 121]

Device damage

Device calibration tampering

Forging PMU data

GPS spoofing

Multi-alteration technique to trace adversary in event of GPS spoofing

Visible GPS satellite prediction

Anomaly between expected and measured GPS signals

Using SSL/TLS or IPSec to encrypt data before transmission

Using state estimation technique to mitigate device calibration and tampering

Rigorous penetration testing prior to installation

Communication [57, 61, 62, 66, 112, 113, 114, 115, 122]

Denial of service

Man-in-the-middle

False data injection

Snooping attack

Delay attack

Airgapping PMU network

Filtering routers, disabling IP broadcasts, applying security patches, disabling unused ports

Server authentication by clients before establishing connection

Use of time-series state estimation

Cryptographic methods like AES, DES

Mutual authentication

Cyber trust model with blockchains

NASPInet hub-spoke model

Optimal key generation and distribution

Application [63, 64, 65, 116, 117]

Phishing and social engineering

APT and insider threats

Replay attacks

Authentication, authorization and accounting (AAA)

Use of secure data transfer protocol to prevent replay attack

  1. 1)

    Device, Aggregator: NASPI network (NASPInet) is logically capable of integrating WAMS across multiple geographically distant organizations using phasor gateways (PGWs). The attacks at this level compromise data integrity, targeting devices from individual PMUs to PDCs, SuperPDCs or even PGWs. Some attacks include: ① tampering the signal measurement units of devices through interference; ② illicitly changing the calibration of devices to report erroneous readings; ③ forging data to reflect wrong measurements; and ④ GPS spoofing by broadcasting fabricated signals to the receiver to yield erroneous synchronization of phasors computed, modifying satellite position, or replaying legitimate GPS signals at later timestamps [54].

    GPS spoofing can be mitigated by enabling the receiver to predict visible GPS satellites at a given position and time instant and use the coarse/acquisition (C/A) code from those satellites. Another strategy compares the measured GPS signal to the estimated signal and computes the anomaly error which must have an accuracy of ≤ 40 ns for nearly 95% of the values according to IEEE C37.118 [44]. Synchrophasors must be subject to rigorous testing before installation. Some methods include port scans, device security feature robustness, network congestion testing, denial of service testing, network traffic sniffing and disclosure testing [55]. These tests should be periodically conducted by certified white hat penetration testers after installation. Regular patches and configuration updates must be made down to the end-device level.

     
  2. 2)

    Communication: Synchrophasors support bidirectional communication channels, where data measurements flow from devices to the control center while control signals flow the other way. The vulnerabilities of the protocols used by the devices also contribute to the overall security. Attacks on communication channels compromise integrity, availability and confidentiality. Some attacks include: ① Denial of service (DoS) by overwhelming PMUs, PDCs or other aggregation devices higher in the hierarchy with bogus frames so that legitimate frames are lost, delayed, denied or dropped; ② Man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks by a malicious entity posing itself as PDC (to PMU) or PGW (to PDC) and sending malicious commands that causes PMUs/PDCs to behave in an abnormal manner that triggers failures; ③ False data injection (FDI) by intercepting frames over the channel, altering or replacing them with malicious information that then gets propagated to higher levels of the WAMS; ④ Snooping by the attacker eavesdropping on the channel for incoming or outgoing frames, typically not modifying or stealing but just capturing a copy of that information for packet replay or espionage; and ⑤ Delay caused by compromising communication routers that deliberately induce latencies in propagation to critically affect the grid’s SA.

    Many authentication and authorization algorithms are proposed to secure synchrophasor data over communication channels [57]. These methods range from conventional encryption methods to cyber trust. Due to the ubiquity and widespread range of these devices, key distribution and management becomes a problem. Mutual authentication is also proposed to account for trust [61]. Decentralized, blockchain-based trust acquisition is being considered too. The publish-subscribe hub-spoke architecture proposed by NASPInet supports dynamic sharing of device data to alleviate shortcomings of the communication medium like delays and latencies. Standards like IEC 61850-90-5 recommend trusted key distribution center to generate and distribute keys that meet system requirements [63, 64, 65, 66].

     
  3. 3)

    Application: Despite being protected by enterprise security tools for intrusion detection and prevention, virtualization, segmentation, authentication, authorization and access control, cyberattacks still proliferate [67, 68]. It is understood that any successful attack at the other two levels perpetrated in a manner undetectable by the enterprise security systems can pose a significant threat. The attacks at this level are the most dangerous, since crucial power system applications use data from WAMS to conduct analysis to address reliability, power quality, network topology, and faults. An adverse impact on these calculations could compromise the “self-healing” nature of the grid. More recent solutions include game theory, machine learning, proactive data visualization, and defense-in-depth [12, 123].

     

3.2.1 Evaluation of security

Works have tested the resilience of PMUs and PDCs against different attacks. The authors in [124] conducted penetration testing of a synchrophasor network in IEEE 68-bus system to map vulnerabilities against the common vulnerabilities exposure (CVE) database. Potential corrective measures to ensure the security of PMUs and PDCs is proposed [125]. Considering the security at substation and information levels, the authors provide a wide range of tools to mitigate breaches at both fronts. A multilayered architecture at the substation is proposed where different levels of data abstraction is provided between PMUs and external environment, supplemented by firewalls, user datagram protocol (UDP) secure for communication over untrusted networks, and remote access using secure shell (SSH).

4 Data quality-cybersecurity dependency

The severity of an attack can be understood from the extent of its impacts on the targeted system. With the smart grid encouraging interoperability between devices, information, applications, and protocols, a transparent and direct information exchange is now feasible. This also means that if information in one of the interconnected systems is infected, it is bound to propagate to other systems upon exchange, affecting the whole network. Synchrophasor devices harbor such vulnerabilities, as summarized in Section 3.2. However, to mitigate cyberattacks on interconnected systems, the relationship between devices and data must be known.

Table 5 summarizes key interdependencies between the two challenges. There is a tight coupling between data quality and cyber-attacks, implying it is wise to study synchrophasor cybersecurity by accounting for the impacts on quality. In most attacks, plausibility, completeness, accuracy and consistency are primarily impacted [126, 127]. In Section 4.1, specific evaluation methods for quantifying this relationship are reviewed. Section 4.2 looks at how data quality characteristics can be used as markers to detect potential cyber-attacks within the context of synchrophasors. Results from these subsections are summarized in Tables 6 and 7, respectively.
Table 5

Summary of the interdependency between quality and cybersecurity challenges

Level

Quality attribute

Quality issue

Cyber-attack observed

Security attribute impacted

Device

Completeness, accuracy, plausibility

Synchronization signal loss, measurement signal loss, missing data

GPS spoofing, replay, device tamper, changing device calibration, FDI

Integrity

Aggregator

Origin, consistency, plausibility

Corrupted data, anomalies, outliers

FDI, tampering, buffer overflow, MITM

Confidentiality, integrity

Communication

Availability, origin, consistency

Anomalies, outliers, inconsistent, out-of-order data

DoS, MITM, FDI,

snooping, replay, delay

Confidentiality, integrity, availability

Application

Origin, availability, consistency, completeness, accuracy

DoS, delay, APT, FDI, theft/fraud, insider attack

Corrupted data,

missingness, anomalies,

outliers

Confidentiality, integrity, availability

Table 6

Summary of evaluation methods for quality (DQ) and cybersecurity (CS) issues

Issue

Challenge

Evaluation methods

Noise (DQ)

Consistency, accuracy

Cable configuration, testing, validation

Specifying confidence interval, precision, TVE,

ROCOF for measurements

Evaluating instrumentation channels

Model-based correction

State estimation-based error filtering

Presistence in Data/Header frames

Standards compliance

Outlier (DQ)

Consistency, origin, accuracy

Standardization, benchmarking

Enhancing endpoints with switches, routers

Specifying device model, coverage and content

Missingness (DQ)

Completeness, availability, accuracy

Dedicated communication channels

Enhancing endpoints with switches, routers

Delay/loss (CS)

All levels

Regular penetration testing of all levels

Link-level encryption, selective encryption

Dedicated communication channels

Data redundancy for fault tolerance

Manipulation (CS)

Device, Aggregator, Communication

Regular penetration testing of all levels

Link-level encryption, selective encryption

Data abstraction, multi-layered architecture

Data redundancy for fault tolerance

Augmenting ID/IPS, firewalls, ACLs, VPNs

Theft (CS)

Device, Aggregator, Communication

Regular penetration testing of all levels

Data abstraction, multi-layered architecture

Data redundancy for fault tolerance

Augmenting firewalls, ACLs, VPNs

Table 7

Summary showing how quality can help identify cybersecurity issues

Cyber-attack

Quality affected

Quality check looks for

Mitigation methods using quality

Device tampering (delay/loss, theft) [128, 129]

Completeness, plausibility, accuracy, consistency, origination

Large gap sizes, inaccurate readings, ping fail

Statistical substitution: regression, imputation, interpolation

Intelligent substitution: neural networks, logistic regression, optimization

Securing the physical devices

Spoofing PMU data (manipulation) [130, 131, 132]

Consistency, accuracy, plausibility

Unexpected values, errors, mismatch with SCADA values, redundant timestamp, out-of-order packet arrival

Monitoring line impedances for anomalies

Divergence and miscorrelation between SCADA and PMU data

GPS spoofing (manipulation, delay/loss) [54, 133, 134, 135]

Consistency, origination, plausibility

Inaccurate timing value, TVE > 1%, packets arrive out-of-order

Using multiple synchronization sources or telecommunications

Anti-spoofing checking methods at receivers

Internal holdover oscillators as backups for providing accurate timing signals

Spoofing match algorithm with Golden Search for lighter computation

Denial of service (delay/loss) [129]

Completeness, accuracy, consistency

Congestion at PDCs/network, delayed arrival of packets, dropped packets, inability to reach suspected device

Augmenting PDCs with inline blocking tools

Employ port hardening and disable IP broadcasts

Use high bandwidth communications (expensive)

Man-in-the-middle (delay/loss, manipulation, theft) [129]

Origination, accuracy, availability, consistency

Mismatch between obtained and expected value, abnormal delay in packet arrival

Mutual authentication, message authentication codes

Digital certificates with active management of CRLs

False data injection (manipulation, theft) [136, 137, 138, 139, 140]

Plausibility, consistency, accuracy, origination

Mismatch with SCADA values, unexpected values, spatio-temporal outliers

Spatio-temporal correlations, density based local outlier factoring

Monitor line impedance for anomalies

Random time-hopping of packets

Divergence and miscorrelation between SCADA and PMU data

Snooping, sniffing (theft) [59, 129]

Plausibility, origin

No observable changesadditional analysis needed

Using secure gateway/VPN communication

Employing TLS/SSL, SSH, lightweight selective encryption

Delay (delay/loss) [59, 129]

Completeness, consistency, availability, accuracy

Observable patterns in gaps, slow arrival of packets

Statistical and intelligent substitutions

Redundant measurement devices on the same line

APT, insider threat (delay/loss, theft, manipulation) [123]

Accuracy, consistency, origin, plausibility

No observable changesadditional analysis needed

Defense-in-depth

Machine learning, advanced data analytics

4.1 Interdependency evaluation methods

Next to communications, cybersecurity was found to impact the design and installation costs for synchrophasors [141]. This is because they are critical to the missionsupport systems of the grid. Different practical ways for utilities to mitigate quality issues like accuracy, timeliness and consistency are also identified. Some methods include employing dedicated communication channels between PMUs and PDCs, encrypting PMU data before communication, and enhancing communication endpoints using firewalls and routers. The report, however, does not delve into the details of how such methods could impact latency (and hence, timeliness) and availability of the data.

Given different manufacturers of devices, there will be differences in measurement and calibration quality despite adhering to the standards. The varying application requirements cause differences in application-level PMU performance, of which data quality is a major one. The static and dynamic PMU testing efforts of the Performance and Standards Task Team (PSTT) of NASPI and the PMU performance characterization are briefly summarized in [142]. In it, the different steady-state tests performed on magnitude, phase and frequency evaluate their conformance to accuracy requirements, which is an important attribute of data quality and is a direct target of many cyberattacks. Given the impact of instrumentation channels on the quality, they have been well-characterized and evaluated for impacts on accuracy in the literature. The errors induced by them could be rectified through model-based correction algorithms and state estimation based error filtering. Some other avenues where data quality could be evaluated include the cable configurations, testing and validating the devices to ensure accurate, consistent performance and interoperability at all levels [143, 144]. Although not explicit, these works hint at the improvement in the resilience of synchrophasor devices against potentially malicious activities by accounting for proper testing methods to characterize and evaluate the different sources of errors prior to deployment that might contribute to poor quality.

Final conclusions can be gathered from [145]. The report by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) analyzes existing synchrophasor networks in terms of their communication and information-level interoperability, security and performance. It concluded that latency is a key issue for the future synchrophasor designs which is expected to compound latency due to PDC functionality. It also emphasized that substations generally did not employ redundancy; there is little consistency in adoption of security methods for synchrophasor networks. Some tools include link-level encryption, virtual private networks (VPNs), ID/IPS, firewalls and access control lists (ACLs). Further, existing data quality checking methods locate a compromise in integrity by identifying faulted data values (due to measurement errors, communication delays or external events) but not due to result of device tampering, MITM, spoofing or FDI. Since both faults and attacks have the same impact on quality, it is important to differentiate the two causes while checking for the attributes such as accuracy, consistency and timeliness.

To summarize, the following measures can be used as metrics to quantify data quality: TVE, errors in magnitude, phase, frequency and ROCOF, harmonics and noise for measurement accuracy; comparison between measured and expected results, confidence interval and precision for measurement specifiers; temporal, geospatial and topological accuracy for attribute accuracy; device model specifications, geospatial and topological coordinates, coverage and content for origination; persistence in Header and Data frames, standards compliance, reporting rate and order for logical consistency; and gap rate, gap size and largest known gap for completeness. Benchmarking and standardization are two methods that can be used to evaluate data quality. Similarly, cybersecurity can be quantified by conducting extensive penetration testing of the synchrophasor networks integrated into benchmarked IEEE bus systems for different types of attacks (DoS, MITM, FDI, spoofing, probing, cache poisoning) and discovering potential vulnerabilities that could be exploited. While doing so, it would be important to also repeat the evaluation of the quality attributes using the above metrics and explore how they are impacted due to the specific attacks, and whether they violate the industry standards requirements specified for different applications.

4.2 Addressing cyber-attacks using quality issues

It can be seen from Table 7 that successful cyberattacks compromise synchrophasor data quality since the security requirements are violated [146]. Given synchrophasors use TCP/UDP on the transport layer for their communications, attacks typically possible on TCP/IP stack like DoS, MITM, packet replay or spoofing are possible in synchrophasor domains as well.

Physical attacks like device tampering causes loss or incurs theft of critical information, easily observed through large gaps sizes, poor accuracy in obtained values and unreliable origin. The lost data is typically handled through substitution, either statistical or intelligent [128, 129]. The best way to prevent physical attacks like cable disconnects, direct damage to device, etc. is by ensuring the devices are isolated from external weather and human elements.

Spoofing synchrophasor data is achievable through polynomial fitting or data mirroring techniques. Such attacks impact quality that manifests as outliers or noise. Several methods have been proposed to counter these attacks: intra-PMU and inter-PMU correlations to determine the relationship between PMU parameters and across PMUs in a locality, respectively; machine learning techniques like support vector machines (SVMs) and more [130, 131, 132].

GPS spoofing exploits publicly available civilian GPS signals using air or cable to produce signals that initially align with the original, but slowly start increasing the power to drown the authentic signal and thereby compromising the receiver [54, 133]. By introducing measurement errors in the time synchronization, the attacks induce changes in data consistency and plausibility which can be used as markers to identify the likelihood of the attack [134, 135, 147].

In a successful DoS where multiple synchrophasor devices get compromised, packet delay or loss is observed. This impact in quality can serve a clue to the onset of DoS-style attacks. Typical solutions involve augmenting inline blocking tools, high bandwidth connections, disabling IP broadcasts and port hardening.

MITM is possible in synchrophasors where the attacker acts as a legitimate PDC to the PMUs and viceversa, thereby intercepting and/or modifying all messages exchanged. This is noticed by quality checking methods in the form of poor accuracy and consistency in values between what was sent by PMU and what was received by PDC. It can be avoided by having the devices employ mutual authentication and a digital certificate mechanism with an actively managed certificate evocation lists (CRLs) and certificate authorities [59, 129].

FDI impacts the consistency, accuracy and plausibility of the data. The effects are typically observed as spatio-temporal outliers in the data. Quality checking methods check for this anomaly and may employ correlation across different timestamps to identify the corruption of data. FDI is one of the widely explored attacks on synchrophasor domain, with solutions like determining the mismatch between the values obtained from PMUs and that observed in SCADA, monitoring the line impedances which get affected when data is manipulated, and using density-based local outlier filter (LOF) analysis [136, 137, 138, 139, 140].

Sometimes, attackers simply capture the packets flowing in a channel with an intent to listen. Such sniffing/snooping attacks have been conducted using WireShark to realize messages are exchanged in plaintext. This attack is difficult to detect using data quality checking methods since most often, no quality characteristic is impacted as the attackers do not affect the data actively. However, technologies like VPN, encryption of selective messages (to reduce the overall process overhead), or transport layer security (TLS)/secure ocket layer (SSL), secure shell (SSH) can be used to mitigate them. While TLS has been shown to be susceptible to poisoning attacks and VPN to side channel attacks, careful network design can account for them [129, 148].

With the increased frequency of campaign efforts and nation-sponsored attacks against the grid, synchrophasors could be lucrative targets for sophisticated attacks like advanced persistent threats (APTs), social engineering, watering-hole attacks and malware-based intrusions [149, 150, 151, 152, 153]. While these attacks scale beyond specific devices in the synchrophasor hierarchy, the quality checking methods alone would not be sufficient [123]. The use of defense-in-depth model augmented with stakeholder interactions, awareness and training, and intelligent solutions like machine learning for attack data classification and/or event prediction, root-cause analysis of observed events, developing evolving defense topographies using moving target defense, and advanced visualization techniques for efficient cognition of events would play a critical role.

The key takeaway from this section is that impacts on data quality can provide strong markers for an underlying cyber-attack. Noise, outliers and missing values are all commonly observed issues which quality checking methods may be programmed to detect, analyze and base decisions on. Certain sophisticated attacks like APTs, insider threats, sniffing, and social engineering have indirect impacts on quality which a checking method may not be able to detect with enough confidence or precision. Additional solutions are required to mitigate such attacks in the synchrophasor domain. These solutions include statistical methods like divergence, correlation, regression and substitution; intelligent methods like neural networks and evolutionary algorithms for event classification and prediction, logistic regression for substitution; technologies like VPNs, firewalls, ID/IPS, anomaly detectors, selective encryption, port hardening, network isolation and use of TLS/SSL, SSH; and human-in-the-loop solutions like advanced visualization techniques, awareness and training, and stakeholder engagements. While the impacts on quality can also be due to underlying device or measurement errors, most of the works in the literature assume the data has been subject to delay/loss, manipulation or theft intentionally. This paves way for the recommendation that the upcoming research in this area must look at ways to differentiate the impacts on data quality due to attacks from errors.

5 Future directions of research and conclusion

The future directions of research in the areas of synchrophasor data quality, cybersecurity and communications are multi-faceted. Addressing data quality challenges must begin with a strong push to the adoption of industry-wide, vendor-agnostic data management, processing and storage standards for smart grid. Most recent cyber-attacks were successful due to the difference in speed of cognition of the information generated by automated vulnerability detection tools and the speed with which the machine data is created (called cognitive gap) [123]. The design of synchrophasor devices are also expected to improve in the future [103]. Keeping in mind the quality challenges, an improvement to PDC design called flexible integrated synchrophasor system (FIPS) was proposed to minimize issues in quality and communication, and tackles specific tasks of PDC such as data alignment, employs cryptographic methods to ensure confidential exchange of data without jeopardizing integrity, and establishes relevance to the NASPInet [121]. To ensure device and applicationlevel interoperability, development of technical standards and conformance testing rules is expected. Further, the emergence of distribution-level µ−PMUs will evoke the need for developing measurement, communication, quality and security standards. Further, with the deployment of distributed renewable sources, electric and autonomous vehicles, energy storage and transactive energy, there is a strong impetus for enhancing technologies behind monitoring and control, of which synchrophasors will play a major role [141].

To conclude, while existing research has focused on the synchrophasor challenges of quality and cybersecurity individually, their interdependency has largely been ignored. This paper makes one of the first attempts at highlighting the impacts of cyber-attacks on various quality attributes, thereby recommending that the future research on the design and development of security solutions should account for their impacts on quality as well, and that different quality characteristics can be used by quality checking methods to flag for potential cyber-attacks. Plausibility, completeness, accuracy and consistency are some of the attributes that are most adversely impacted by a majority of the attacks on synchrophasors. At the same time, not all cases of poor data quality imply a successful cyber-attack as the reason. Different metrics that could be used to quantify quality attributes were summarized, and the methods that help evaluate the impacts of quality and security on performance were also briefly highlighted. This paper serves as a starting point for researchers entering these areas as it summarizes and determines their interdependency and relevance to smart grid security.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation Grant (No. CNS-1553494) and the Department of Energy Grant (No. 800006104). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF and DOE.

References

  1. [1]
    Ozgur U, Nair HT, Sundararajan A et al (2017) An efficient MQTT framework for control and protection of networked cyber-physical systems. In: Proceedings of IEEE conference on communications and network security, Las Vegas, USA, 9–11 October 2017, pp 421–426Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Sanjab A, Saad W, Guvenc I et al (2016) Smart grid security: threats, challenges, and solutions. arXiv:1606.06992 [cs.IT]
  3. [3]
    Sundararajan A, Pons A, Sarwat AI (2015) A generic framework for EEG-based biometric authentication. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on information technology new generations, Las Vegas, USA, 13–15 April 2015, pp 139–144Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Anzalchi A, Sarwat A (2015) A survey on security assessment of metering infrastructure in smart grid systems. In: Proceedings of IEEE SoutheastCon, Fort Lauderdale, USA, 9–12 April 2015, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Dagle JE (2004) Data management issues associated with the August 14th, 2003 blackout investigation. In: Proceedings of IEEE power engineering society general meeting, Denver, USA, 6–10 June 2004, pp 1680–1684Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Larsson S, Ek E (2004) The blackout in southern Sweden and eastern Denmark, September 23, 2003. In: Proceedings of IEEE power engineering society general meeting, Denver, USA, 6–10 June 2004, pp 1668–1672Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Corsi S, Sabelli C (2004) General blackout in Italy Sunday September 28th, 2003, h 03:28:00. In: Proceedings of IEEE power engineering society general meeting, Denver, USA, 6–10 June 2004, pp 1691–1702Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Berizzi A (2004) The Italian 2003 blackout. In: Proceedings of IEEE power engineering society general meeting, Denver, USA, 6-10 June 2004, pp 1673–1679Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Gomes P (2004) New strategies to improve bulk power systems security: lessons learned from large blackouts. In: Proceedings of IEEE power engineering society general meeting, Denver, USA, 6–10 June 2004, pp 1703–1708Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Imai S (2004) TEPCO observations on August 14 blackout and recommendations to prevent future blackouts based on TEPCOs experience. In: Proceedings of IEEE power engineering society general meeting, Denver, USA, 6–10 June 2004, pp 1–27Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Jamei M, Sarwat AI, Iyengar SS et al (2015) Security breach possibility with RSS-based localization of smart meters incorporating maximum likelihood estimator. In: Selvaraj H, Zydek D, Chmaj G (eds) Progress in systems engineering. Advances in intelligent systems and computing, vol 366. Springer, Cham.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-31908422-0-20 Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Wei L, Sarwat AI, Saad W (2016) Risk assessment of coordinated cyber-physical attacks against power grids: a stochastic game approach. In: Proceedings of IEEE industry applications society annual meeting, Portland, USA, 2–6 October 2016, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Hauer JF, Bhatt NB, Shah K et al (2004) Performance of “WAMS East” in providing dynamic information for the North East blackout of August 14, 2003. In: Proceedings of IEEE power and energy society general meeting, Denver, USA, 6–10 June 2004, pp 1685–1690Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force (2004) Final report on the August 14, 2003 blackout in the United States and Canada: causes and recommendations. North American Electric Reliability Commission (NERC) Report. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/oeprod/DocumentsandMedia/Outage_Task_Force_DRAFT_Report_on_Implementation.pdf. Accessed October 2017
  15. [15]
    Zima M, Larsson M, Korba P et al (2005) Design aspects for wide-area monitoring and control system. Proceedings of the IEEE 93(5):980–996Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Wei L, Sarwat A, Saad W et al (2018) Stochastic games for power grid protection against coordinated cyber-physical attacks. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 9(2):684–694Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Ashton PM, Taylor GA, Irving MR et al (2012) Prospective wide area monitoring of the Great Britain transmission system using phasor measurement units. In: Proceedings of IEEE power engineering society general meeting, San Diego, USA, 22–16 July 2012, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Chow JH, Beard L, Patel M et al (2015) Guidelines for siting phasor measurement units. North American SynchroPhasor Initiative Research Initiative Task team (NASPI-RITT) Report. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279658581_Guidelines_for_Siting_Phasor_Measurement_Units__Version_8_June_15_2011_North_American_SynchroPhasor_Initiative_(NASPI)_Research_Initiative_Task_Team_(RITT)_Report. Accessed 15 June 2011
  19. [19]
    Gomes P, Martins N, de Mello P et al (1998) Assuring system reliability in a competitive environment. In: Proceedings of CIGRE meeting, Paris, France, 30 August–5 September 1998, pp 38–104Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    de Azevedo R, Allen D, Perpuly Y et al (2015) PMU placement considering data uncertainty and redundancy. In: Proceedings of IEEE SoutheastCon, Fort Lauderdale, USA, 9–12 April 2015, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Parvez I, Islam A, Kaleem F (2014) A key management-based two-level encryption method for AMI. In: Proceedings of IEEE power engineering society general meeting-conference & exposition, National Harbor, USA, 27–31 July 2014, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Wang Y, Saad W, Sarwat AI et al (2018) Reactive power compensation game under prospect-theoretic framing effects. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 9(5):4181–4193Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Ma J, Zhang P, Fu HJ et al (2010) Application of phasor measurement unit on locating disturbance source for low-frequency oscillation. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 1(3):340–346Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Narendra K (2007) Role of phasor measurement unit (PMU) in wide area monitoring and control. ERL phase power technologies report, pp 1–45. http://www.erlphase.com/downloads/application_notes/Roles_of_PMUs_in_Wide_Area_Monitoring_and_Control.pdf. Accessed 17 July 2017
  25. [25]
    Novosel D, Vu K (2006) Benefits of PMU technology for various applications. In: Proceedings of international council on large electric systems- CIGRE croatian national committee, 7th symposium on power system management, Paris, France, 5–8 November 2006, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Ferrari L, Gentz R, Scaglione A et al (2014) The pulse coupled phasor measurement units. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on smart grid communications (SmartGridComm), Venice, Italy, 3–6 November 2014, pp 320–325Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Sreenivasareddy PS, Chowdhury SP, Chowdhury S (2010) PMU placement-a comparative survey and review. In: Proceedings of IET international conference on developments in power system protection, Manchester, UK, 29 March–1 April 2010, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Aamre K, Centeno VA, Pal A (2015) Unified PMU placement algorithm for power systems. In: Proceedings of North American power symposium (NAPS), Charlotte, USA, 4–6 October 2015, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Parvez I, Sarwat AI, Wei L et al (2016) Securing metering infrastructure of smart grid: a machine learning and localization based key management approach. MDPI J Energies 9(9):691–708Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Parvez I, Jamei M, Sundararajan A et al (2014) RSS based loop-free compass routing protocol for data communication in advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) of smart grid. In: Proceedings of 2014 IEEE symposium on computational intelligence applications in smart grid (CIASG), Orlando, USA, 9–12 December 2014, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    Negash K, Khan B, Yohannes E (2016) Artificial intelligence versus conventional mathematical techniques: a review for optimal placement for phasor measurement units. Technol Econ Smart Grids Sustain Energy.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40866-016-0009-y Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    Rahman NHA, Zobaa AF (2016) Optimal PMU placement using topology transformation method in power systems. J Adv Res 7(5):625–634Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    Nazari-Heris M, Mohammed-Ivatloo B (2015) Application of heuristic algorithms to optimal PMU placement in electric power systems: an updated review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 50:214–228Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    Chouhan D, Jaiswal V (2016) A literature review on optimal placement of PMU and voltage stability. Indian J Sci Technol 9(47):1–7Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    Meier A, Stewart E, McEachern A et al (2017) Precision micro-synchrophasors for distribution systems: a summary of applications. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 8(6):2926–2936Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    Sexauer J, Javanbakht P, Mohaghehi S (2013) Phasor measurement units for the distribution grid: necessity and benefits. In: Proceedings of IEEE PES innovative smart grid technologies, Washington DC, USA, 24–27 February 2013, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    Singh B, Sharma NK, Tiwari AN et al (2011) Applications of phasor measurement units (PMUs) in electric power system networks incorporated with FACTS controllers. Int J Eng Sci Technol 3(3):64–82Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    Sanchez-Ayala G, Aguerc JR, Elizondo D et al (2013) Current trends on applications of PMUs in distribution systems. In: Proceedings of IEEE PES innovative smart grid technologies conference (ISGT), Washington DC, USA, 24–27 February 2013, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    Lee H, Tushar Cui B et al (2017) A review of synchrophasor applications in smart grid. WIREs Energy Environ 6(3):1–31Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    Lauby M (2010) Real-time application of PMUs to improve reliability task force (RAPIR TF). NERC technical presentation. https://www.nerc.com/comm/oc/related%20files%20dl/rapir_oc_slides.pdf. Accessed 1 August 2017
  41. [41]
    Mohanta DK, Murthy C, Roy DS (2016) A brief review of phasor measurement units as sensors for smart grid. Electric Power Compon Syst 44(4):411–425Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    NASPI PMU Applications Requirements Task Force White Paper (2017) PMU data quality: a framework for the attributes of PMU data quality and a methodology for examining data quality impacts to synchrophasor applications. NASPI technical report. https://www.naspi.org/sites/default/files/reference_documents/PARTF_WhitePaper_20170314_Final_PNNL.pdf. Accessed 1 August 2017
  43. [43]
    Christoforidis GP, Meliopoulos APS (1990) Effects of modeling on the accuracy of harmonic analysis. IEEE Trans Power Deliv 5(3):1598–1607Google Scholar
  44. [44]
    Zhu F, Youssef A, Hamouda W (2016) Detection techniques for data-level spoofing in GPS-based phasor measurement units. In: Proceedings of international conference on selected topics in mobile & wireless networking (MoWNeT), Cairo, Egypt, 11–13 April 2016, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  45. [45]
    Yang B, Yamazaki J, Saito N, et al (2015) Big data analytic empowered grid applications—is PMU a big data issue? In: Proceedings of 12th international conference on the European energy market (EEM), Lisbon, Portugal, 19–22 May 2015, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  46. [46]
    Rahman NHA, Zobaa AF (2016) Optimal PMU placement using topology transformation method in power systems. J Adv Res 7(5):625–634Google Scholar
  47. [47]
    Veda S, Chaudhuri NR, Baone CA, et al (2014) Assessment of impact of data quality on PMU-based applications. In: Proceedings of CIGRE US national committee grid of the future symposium, http://cigre-usnc.tamu.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2015/06/Assessment-of-Impact-of-DataQuality-on-PMU-Based-Applications.pdf. Accessed 1 August 2017
  48. [48]
    Zhu K (1988) A method for plausibility checks and data validation in power systems. IEEE Trans Power Syst 3(1):267–271Google Scholar
  49. [49]
    Danielson CFM, Vanfretti L, Almas MS et al (2013) Analysis of communication network challenges for synchrophasor-based widearea applications. In: Proceedings of IREP symposium on bulk power system dynamics and control - IX optimization, security and control of the emerging power grid (IREP), Rethymno, Greece, 25–30 August 2013, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  50. [50]
    Hu Y, Novosel D (2006) Challenges in implementing a large-scale PMU system. In: Proceedings of 2006 international conference on power system technology, Chongqing, China, 22–26 October 2006, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  51. [51]
    Jones KD, Pal A, Thorp JS (2015) Methodology for performing synchrophasor data conditioning and validation. IEEE Trans Power Syst 30(3):1121–1130Google Scholar
  52. [52]
    Huang C, Li F, Zhan L et al (2016) Data quality issues for synchrophasor applications part II: problem formulation and potential solutions. J Mod Power Syst Clean Energy 4(3):353–361Google Scholar
  53. [53]
    Huang C, Li F, Zhan L et al (2016) Data quality issues for synchrophasor applications part I: a review. J Mod Power Syst Clean Energy 4(3):342–352Google Scholar
  54. [54]
    Shepard DP, Humphreys TE, Fansler AA (2012) Evaluation of the vulnerability of phasor measurement units to GPS spoofing attacks. Int J Crit Infrastruct Prot 5(3–4):146–153Google Scholar
  55. [55]
    Morris T, Pan S, Lewis J et al (2011) Cybersecurity testing of substation phasor measurement units and phasor data concentrators. In: Proceedings of the seventh annual workshop on cyber security and information intelligence research, Oak Ridge, USA, 12–14 October 2011, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  56. [56]
    Hao Y, Wang M, Chow J (2015) Likelihood of cyber data injection attacks to power systems. In: Proceedings of IEEE global conference on signal and information processing (GlobalSIP), Orlando, USA, 14–16 December 2015, pp 657–661Google Scholar
  57. [57]
    Kumar S, Soni MK, Jain DK (2015) Cyber security threats in synchrophasor system in wide area monitoring system. Int J Comput Appl 115(8):17–22Google Scholar
  58. [58]
    Lin H, Deng Y, Shukla S et al (2012) Cyber security impacts on all-PMU state estimator-a case study on cosimulation platform GECO. In: Proceedings of IEEE third international conference on smart grid communications (SmartGridComm), Tainan, China, 5–8 November 2012, pp 587–592Google Scholar
  59. [59]
    Beasley CT (2014) Electric power synchrophasor network cyber security vulnerabilities. Dissertation. Clemson UniversityGoogle Scholar
  60. [60]
    Rizzetti TA, Canha LN, Milbradt R et al (2015) Security aspects on PMU data communication based on IP networks in smart grids. In: Proceedings of 23rd international conference on electricity distribution, Lyon, France, June 15–18, 2015, pp 1477–1481Google Scholar
  61. [61]
    Saxena N, Choi BJ (2015) State of the art authentication, access control, and secure integration in smart grid. MDPI J Energies 8(10):11883–11915Google Scholar
  62. [62]
    Deng Y, Shukla S (2012) Vulnerabilities and countermeasures a survey on the cyber security issues in the transmission subsystem of a smart grid. Journal of Cyber Security and Mobility, https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Vulnerabilitiesand-Countermeasures-%E2%80%93-A-Survey-on-a-Deng-Shukla/6c4b97cc4f70fb34cad8c2b03f7fb5dfb8a5e84d. Accessed 30 June 2017
  63. [63]
    Pan S (2014) Cybersecurity testing and intrusion detection for cyber-physical power systems. Dissertation. Mississippi State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  64. [64]
    Ashok A, Hahn A, Govindarasu M (2014) Cyberphysical security of wide-area monitoring, protection and control in a smart grid environment. J Adv Res 5(4):481–489Google Scholar
  65. [65]
    Adhikari U, Morris T, Pan S (2016) WAMS cyber physical test bed for power system, cybersecurity study, and data mining. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 8(6):2744–2753Google Scholar
  66. [66]
    Paudel S, Smith P, Zseby T (2016) Data integrity attacks in smart grid wide area monitoring. In: Proceedings of the 4th international symposium for ICS & SCADA cyber security research, Belfast, UK, 23-25 August 2016, pp 1-10Google Scholar
  67. [67]
    Akyol BA (2012) Cyber security challenges in using cloud computing in the electric utility industry. DOE technical report by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technicalreports/PNNL-21724.pdf. Accessed 1 September 2012
  68. [68]
    Weekes MA, Hydro M, Hydro KWM (2007) PMU challenges and performance issues. In: Proceedings of the IEEE power engineering society general meeting, Tampa, USA, 24–28 June 2007, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  69. [69]
    Song H, Wu J, Wu K (2014) A wide-area measurement systems-based adaptive strategy for controlled islanding in bulk power systems. MDPI J Energies 7(4):2631–2657Google Scholar
  70. [70]
    Johnson A (2017) Standards associated with synchrophasors. In: Proceedings of IEEE PES general meeting presentation. https://www.naspi.org/sites/default/files/201703/01_scejohnson_Standards_Associated_with_Synchrophasor_s20161019. Accessed 12 August 2018
  71. [71]
    Martin K (2015) Synchrophasor measurements under the IEEE standard C37.118.1-2011 with amendment C37.118.1a. IEEE Trans Power Deliv 30(3):1514–1522Google Scholar
  72. [72]
    Ali I, Aftab MA, Hussain SMS (2016) Performance comparison of IEC 61850-90-5 and IEEE C37.118.2 based wide area PMU communication networks. J Mod Power Syst Clean Energy 4(3):487–495Google Scholar
  73. [73]
    Retty HA (2013) Evaluation and standardizing of phasor data concentrators. Dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  74. [74]
    Premerlani WJ, Kasztenny BZ, Adamiak MG (2006) System and method for synchronized phasor measurement. United States Patent Application Publication, US 2006/0247874 A1. https://patents.google.com/patent/US7444248. Accessed 30 June 2017
  75. [75]
    IEEE power and energy society standard (2011) IEEE standard for synchrophasor data transfer for power systems.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ieeestd.2011.6111222. Accessed 28 December 2011
  76. [76]
    Phadke AG, Thorp JS (2017) Synchronized phasor measurements and their applications. Springer Science+Business Media, 2nd edn. https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319505824. Accessed 30 June 2017
  77. [77]
    Rihan M, Ahmed M, Beg MS (2011) Phasor measurement units in the Indian smart grid. In: Proceedings of IEEE conference on innovative smart grid technologies India (ISGT India), Kollam, India, 1–3 December 2011, pp 261–267Google Scholar
  78. [78]
    NASPI Time Synchronization Task Force (2017) Time synchronization in the electric power system. NASPI Technical Report. https://www.naspi.org/sites/default/files/referencedocuments/tstf_electric_power_system_report_pnnl_2633_1march_20170.pdf. Accessed 3 August 2017
  79. [79]
    C37.118-2005-IEEE standard for synchrophasors for power systems (2006) IEEE power and energy society standard. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1611105/,  https://doi.org/10.1109/ieeestd.2006.99376. Accessed 3 August 2017
  80. [80]
    Kezunovic M, Dutta P (2011) The role of data exchange standards in developing automated fault disturbance monitoring. In: Proceedings of 6th international workshop on deregulated electricity market issues in South-Eastern Europe (DEMSEE). https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f8c3/8c8d8aac32b6cbfa1d84948db977fc8d6a8e.pdf. Accessed 3 August 2017
  81. [81]
    IEEE Power and Energy Society Standard (2011) IEEE standard for synchrophasor measurements for power systems. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6111219/,  https://doi.org/10.1109/ieeestd.2011.6111219. Accessed 3 August 2017
  82. [82]
    IEEE Power and Energy Society Standard (2014) IEEE guide for phasor data concentrator requirements for power system protection, control, and monitoring. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6514039/,  https://doi.org/10.1109/ieeestd.2013.6514039. Accessed 3 August 2017
  83. [83]
    Chai J, Liu Y, Guo J et al (2016) Wide-area measurement data analytics using FNET/GridEye: a review. In: Proceedings of power systems computation conference, Genoa, Italy, 20–24 June 2016, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  84. [84]
    Eissa MM, El-Mesalawy MM, Liu Y et al (2012) Wide area synchronized frequency measurement system architecture with secure communication for 500kV/220kV Egyptian grid. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on smart grid engineering (SGE‘12), Oshawa, Canada, 27–29 August 2012, p 1Google Scholar
  85. [85]
    Liu Y (2014) FNET/GridEye. Technical document of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. https://web.ornl.gov/sci/renewables/docs/factsheets/FNET-GridEye-Factsheet.pdf. Accessed September 2014
  86. [86]
    Stenbakken G, Zhou M (2007) Dynamic phasor measurement unit test system. In: Proceedings of IEEE power engineering society general meeting, Tampa, USA, 24–28 June 2007, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  87. [87]
    Wang L, Burgett J, Zuo J et al (2007) Frequency disturbance recorder design and developments. In: Proceedings of IEEE power engineering society general meeting, Tampa, USA, 24–28 June 2007, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  88. [88]
    Wang L (2010) Next generation frequency disturbance recorder design and timing analysis. Dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  89. [89]
    Culliss JA (2015) A 3rd generation frequency disturbance recorder: a secure, low cost synchrophasor measurement device. Dissertation. University of TennesseeGoogle Scholar
  90. [90]
    IEEE Power and Energy Society (2013) IEEE standard for intelligent electronic devices cyber security capabilities. IEEE power and energy society standard,  https://doi.org/10.1109/ieeestd.2014.6704702. Accessed 28 May 2017
  91. [91]
    IEEE Power and Energy Society (2014) IEEE standard cybersecurity requirements for substation automation, protection, and control systems. IEEE power and energy society standard.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ieeestd.2015.7024885. Accessed 29 May 2017
  92. [92]
    IEEE Power and Energy Society (2011) IEEE trial-use standard for a cryptographic protocol for cyber security for substation serial links. IEEE power and energy society standard,  https://doi.org/10.1109/ieeestd.2011.5715000. Accessed 29 May 2017
  93. [93]
    Firouzi SR, Hooshyar H, Mahmood F et al (2016) An IEC 61850-90-5 gateway for IEEE C37.118.2 synchrophasor data transfer. In: Proceedings of 6th NASPI-ISGAN international synchrophasor symposium, Boston, USA, 17–21 July 2016, pp 1–5. Accessed 29 May 2017Google Scholar
  94. [94]
    Mackiewicz R (2006) Overview of IEC 61850 and benefits. In: Proceedings of IEEE PES power systems conference and exposition, Atlanta, GA, 29 October–1 November 2006, pp 623–630Google Scholar
  95. [95]
    International Electrotechnical Commission (2013) Common format for transient data exchange (COMTRADE) for power systems. IEC 60255-24 Part 24,  https://doi.org/10.1109/ieeestd.2013.6512503. Accessed 2 March 2017
  96. [96]
    SGIP (2010) Introduction to NISTIR 7628 guidelines for smart grid cyber security. The smart grid interoperability panel cyber security working group report. https://www.smartgrid.gov/files/nistir7628.pdf. Accessed 29 May 2017
  97. [97]
    Sun CC, Liu CC, Xie J (2016) Cyber-physical system security of a power grid: state-of-the-art. MDPI J Electron 5(3):40Google Scholar
  98. [98]
    Kezunovic M, Sprintson A, Guan Y et al (2012) Verifying interoperability and application performance of PMUs and PMU-enabled IEDs at the device and system level. Power Systems Engineering Research Center Final Project Report, 2018. https://pserc.wisc.edu/documents/publications/reports/2012_reports/T-43_Final-Report_Aug-2012.pdf. Accessed 14 November 2018
  99. [99]
    Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, National Institute of Standards & Technology Team (2017) Synchrophasor data quality attributes and a methodology for examining data quality impacts upon synchrophasor applications—overview. NASPI technical report. https://www.nist.gov/publications/synchrophasordata-quality-attributes-and-methodology-examining-dataquality-impacts. Accessed 17 July 2017
  100. [100]
    IEEE Power and Energy Society Standard (2013) IEEE guide for synchronization, calibration, testing, and installation of phasor measurement units (PMUs) for power system protection and control.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ieeestd.2013.6475134. Accessed 23 July 2018
  101. [101]
    IEEE Power and Energy Society Standard (2010) IEEE standard for common format for event data exchange (COMFEDE) for power systems.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ieeestd.2010.5638582. Accessed 23 July 2018
  102. [102]
    Huang C, Li F, Zhou D et al (2016) Data quality issues for synchrophasor applications part I: a review. J Mod Power Syst Clean Energy 4(3):342–352Google Scholar
  103. [103]
    Sarwat AI, Sundararajan A, Parvez I et al (2018) Toward a smart city of interdependent critical infrastructure networks. Sustain Interdepend Netw Chapter 3:21–45Google Scholar
  104. [104]
    Sarwat AI, Sundararajan A, Parvez I (2017) Trends and future directions of research for smart grid IoT sensor networks. In: Proceedings of international symposium on sensor networks, systems and security, chapter 3, Lakeland, FL, USA, pp 45–61.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75683-7
  105. [105]
    Aminifar F, Fotuhi-Firuzabad M, Safdarian A et al (2014) Synchrophasor measurement technology in power systems: panorama and state-of-the-art. IEEE Access 2:1607–1628Google Scholar
  106. [106]
    Zhang Y, Markham P, Xia T et al (2010) Wide-area frequency monitoring network (FNET) architecture and applications. IEEE Transa Smart Grid 1(2):159–167Google Scholar
  107. [107]
    Yuill W, Edwards A, Chowdhury S et al (2011) Optimal PMU placement: a comprehensive literature review. In: Proceedings of IEEE power and energy society general meeting, Detroit, USA, 24–29 July 2011, pp 1-8Google Scholar
  108. [108]
    Manousakis NM, Korres GN, Georgilakis PS (2011) Optimal placement of phasor measurement units: a literature review. In: Proceedings of international conference on intelligent system applications to power systems, Hersonissos, Greece, 25–28 September 2011, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  109. [109]
    NERC (2010) Real-time application of synchrophasors for improving reliability. NERC technical report, pp 1–77. https://www.smartgrid.gov/document/real_time_application_synchrophasors_improving_reliability. Accessed 17 July 2017
  110. [110]
    Wu H, Giri J (2006) PMU impact on state estimation reliability for improved grid security. In: Proceedings of 2005/2006 IEEE/PES transmission and distribution conference and exhibition, Dallas, USA, 21–24 May 2006, pp 1349–1351Google Scholar
  111. [111]
    Terzija V, Valverde G, Cai D et al (2010) Wide area monitoring, protection, and control of future electric power networks. Proc IEEE 99(1):80–93Google Scholar
  112. [112]
    Cokkinides GJ, Miliopoulos APS, Stefopoulos G et al (2007) Visualization and characterization of stability swings via GPS-synchronized data. In: Proceedings of 40th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Waikoloa, USA, 3–7 January 2007, 120 ppGoogle Scholar
  113. [113]
    Stenbakken G, Nelson T (2007) Static calibration and dynamic characterization of PMUs at NIST. In: Proceedings of IEEE power engineering society general meeting, Tampa, USA, 24–28 June 2007, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  114. [114]
    Maaß H, Cakmak HK, Bach F et al (2015) Data processing of high-rate low-voltage distribution grid recordings for smart grid monitoring and analysis. EURASIP J Adv Signal Process.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13634015-0203-4 Google Scholar
  115. [115]
    Maass H, Cakmak HK, Suess W et al (2013) First evaluation results using the new electrical data recorder for power grid analysis. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas 62(9):2384–2390Google Scholar
  116. [116]
    Castello P, Ferrari P, Flammini A et al (2015) A distributed PMU for electrical substations with wireless redundant process bus. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas 64(5):1149–1157Google Scholar
  117. [117]
    Dua D, Dambhare S, Gajbhiye RK et al (2008) Optimal multistage scheduling of PMU placement: an ILP approach. IEEE Trans Power Deliv 23(4):1812–1820Google Scholar
  118. [118]
    NASPI PRSVTT, NASPI DNMTT working group (2016) Categorizing phasor measurement units by application data requirements. Draft report. https://www.naspi.org/sites/default/files/201609/naspi_prsvtt_report_20141023.pdf. Accessed 17 July 2017
  119. [119]
    Idaho National Laboratory (INL) (2016) Cyber threat and vulnerability analysis of the U.S. electric sector. Mission support center analysis report. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/Cyber%20Threat%20and%20Vulnerability%20Analysis%20of%20the%20U.S.%20Electric%20Sector.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2018
  120. [120]
    Reinhard K, Pinte B, Kirihara K et al (2015) Synchrophasor data quality activity research update. Trustworthy cyber infrastructure for the smart grid. https://tcipg.org/sites/default/files/rgroup/tcipgreading-group-spring_2015_02-27_0. Accessed 23 June 2018
  121. [121]
    Armenia A, Chow JH (2010) A flexible phasor data concentrator design leveraging existing software technologies. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 1(1):73–81Google Scholar
  122. [122]
    Zhu H, Shi Y (2014) Phasor measurement unit placement for identifying power line outages in wide-area transmission system monitoring. In: Proceedings of 47th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Waikoloa, USA, 6–9 January 2014, pp 2483–2492Google Scholar
  123. [123]
    Sundararajan A, Khan T, Aburub H et al (2018) A tri-modular human-on-the-loop framework for intelligent smart grid cyber-attack visualization. In: Proceedings of IEEE southeast conference, Tampa, USA, 18–22 April 2018, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  124. [124]
    Beasley C, Venayagamoorthy GK, Brooks R (2014) Cyber security evaluation of synchrophasors in a power system. In: Proceedings of Clemson University power systems conference, Clemson, USA, 11–14 March 2014, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  125. [125]
    Stewart J, Maufer T, Smith R et al (2011) Synchrophasor security practices. In: Proceedings of 14th annual Georgia Tech fault and disturbance analysis conference, Atlanta, USA, 9–10 May 2011, pp 1–11. https://cdn.selinc.com/assets/Literature/Publications/Technical%20Papers/6449_SynchrophasorSecurity_EE_20100913_Web.pdf?v=20150812-082045. Accessed 23 June 2018
  126. [126]
    Srivastava AK (2015) Meeting PMU data quality requirements for mission critical applications. PSERC Webinar. https://pserc.wisc.edu/documents/general_information/presentations/pserc_seminars/announcements/2015_webinars/Srivastava_PSERC_Webinar_Nov_2015Announcement.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2018
  127. [127]
    Zhu K (2013) Data quality in wide-area monitoring and control systems, PMU data latency, completeness, and design of wide-area damping systems. Dissertation. KTH Royal Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  128. [128]
    Oleka EU, Khanal A, Osareh AR et al (2015) Exploring the challenging issues with synchrophasor technology deployments in electric power grids. Int J Energy Power Eng 9(9):1085–1088Google Scholar
  129. [129]
    Esfahani MS (2014) Security analysis of phasor measurement units in smart grid communication infrastructures. Dissertation. University of Nebraska-LincolnGoogle Scholar
  130. [130]
    Landford J, Meier R, Barella R et al (2016) Fast sequence component analysis for attack detection in smart grid. In: Proceedings of 5th international conference on smart cities and green ICT systems (SMART-GREENS), Rome, Italy, 23–25 April 2016, pp 225–232. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7951353/
  131. [131]
    Pal S, Sikdar B, Chow J (2016) Detecting data integrity attacks on SCADA systems using limited PMUs. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on smart grid communications (SmartGridComm), Sydney, Australia, 6–9 November 2016, pp 545–550Google Scholar
  132. [132]
    Pal S, Sikdar B (2014) A mechanism for detecting data manipulation attacks on PMU data. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on communication systems, Macau, China, 19–21 November 2014, pp 253–257Google Scholar
  133. [133]
    University of Tennessee Knoxville (2012) Frequency disturbance recorder (FDR) installation guide. UT Knoxville User Guide Report. https://powerit.utk.edu/fdr/FDRInstallAndConfigGuide.pdf. Accessed 1 August 2017
  134. [134]
    Fan X, Du L, Duan D (2017) Synchrophasor data correction under GPS spoofing attack: a state estimation based approach. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 9(5):4538–4546Google Scholar
  135. [135]
    Almas MS, Vanfretti L, Singh RS (2017) Vulnerability of synchrophasor-based WAMPAC applications’ to time synchronization spoofing. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 9(5):4601–4612Google Scholar
  136. [136]
    Aman MN, Sikdar B (2016) Detecting data tampering attacks in synchrophasor networks using time hopping. In: Proceedings of IEEE PES innovative smart grid technologies conference Europe (ISGT-Europe), Ljubljana, Slovenia, 9–12 October 2016, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  137. [137]
    Wu M, Xie L (2017) Online detection of false data injection attacks to synchrophasor measurements: a data-driven approach. In: Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, pp 1–10. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/41544. Accessed 4 January 2017
  138. [138]
    Pal S, Sikdar B, Chow J (2017) Classification and detection of PMU data manipulation attacks using transmission line parameters. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 9(5):5057–5066Google Scholar
  139. [139]
    Mao Z, Xu T, Overbye TJ (2017) Real-time detection of malicious PMU data. In: Proceedings of 19th international conference on intelligent system application to power systems (ISAP), San Antonio, USA, 17–20 September 2017, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  140. [140]
    Zhang J, Chu Z, Sankar L, et al (2017) False data injection attacks on phasor measurements that bypass low-rank decomposition. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on smart grid communications (SmartGridComm), Dresden, Germany, 23–27 October 2017, pp 96–101Google Scholar
  141. [141]
    US Department of Energy (DOE) (2016) Advancement of synchrophasor technology in projects funded by the American recovery and reinvestment act of 2009. Office of electricity delivery and energy reliability report. https://www.energy.gov/oe/downloads/advancementsynchrophasor-technology-projects-funded-americanrecovery-and-reinvestment. Accessed 1 August 2017
  142. [142]
    Huang Z, Kasztenny B, Madani V et al (2008) Performance evaluation of phasor measurement systems. In: Proceedings of IEEE power engineering society general meeting, Pittsburgh, USA, 20–24 July 2008, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  143. [143]
    Stenbakken G, Huang H, Martin K et al (2007) PMU system testing and calibration guide. Technical report for the North American synchrophasor initiative, performance and standard task team. https://www.naspi.org/sites/default/files/reference_documents/pmu_system_test_guide_20071230.pdf. Accessed 1 August 2017
  144. [144]
    Meliopoulos S (2007) Synchrophasor measurement accuracy characterization. Technical report for the North American synchrophasor initiative, performance and standard task team. https://www.naspi.org/node/657. Accessed 26 August 2007
  145. [145]
    Taft J (2018) Assessment of existing synchrophasor networks. Pacific northwest national laboratory (PNNL) technical report. https://gridarchitecture.pnnl.gov/media/whitepapers/Synchrophasor_net_assessment_final.pdf. Accessed April 2018
  146. [146]
    Kumar S, Soni MK, Jain DK (2015) Cyber security threats in synchrophasor system in WAMS. Int J Comput Appl 115(8):17–22Google Scholar
  147. [147]
    Yu DY, Ranganathan A, Locher T et al (2014) Short paper: detection of GPS spoofing attacks in power grids. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM conference on security and privacy in wireless & mobile networks, Oxford, UK, 23–25 July 2014, pp 99–104Google Scholar
  148. [148]
    Khan R, Albalushi A, McLaughlin K et al (2017) Model based intrusion detection system for synchrophasor applications in smart grid. In: Proceedings of IEEE power & energy society general meeting, Chicago, USA, 16–20 July 2017, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  149. [149]
    Tong Y (2015) Data security and privacy in smart grid. Dissertation. University of TennesseeGoogle Scholar
  150. [150]
    Lau F, Rubin SH, Smith MH et al (2000) Distributed denial of service attacks. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics, Nashville, USA, 8–11 October 2000, pp 2275–2280Google Scholar
  151. [151]
    Liu L, Esmalifalak M, Ding Q et al (2014) Detecting false data injection attacks on power grid by sparse optimization. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 5(2):612–621Google Scholar
  152. [152]
    Zhang J, Domnguez-Garca AD (2014) On the failure of power system automatic generation control due to measurement noise. In: Proceedings of 2014 IEEE PES general meeting & conference exposition, National Harbor, USA, 27–31 July 2014, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  153. [153]
    Hastings J, Laverty DM, Morrow DJ (2014) Securing the smart grid. In: Proceedings of 49th international universities power engineering conference (UPEC), Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 2–5 September 2014, pp 1–6Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Florida International UniversityMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations