A Stochastic Game Model for Evaluating the Impacts of Security Attacks Against Cyber-Physical Systems



A quantitative security evaluation in the domain of cyber-physical systems (CPS), which operate under intentional disturbances, is an important open problem. In this paper, we propose a stochastic game model for quantifying the security of CPS. The proposed model divides the security modeling process of these systems into two phases: (1) intrusion process modeling and (2) disruption process modeling. In each phase, the game theory paradigm predicts the behaviors of the attackers and the system. By viewing the security states of the system as the elements of a stochastic game, Nash equilibriums and best-response strategies for the players are computed. After parameterization, the proposed model is analytically solved to compute some quantitative security measures of CPS. Furthermore, the impact of some attack factors and defensive countermeasures on the system availability and mean time-to-shutdown is investigated. Finally, the proposed model is applied to a boiling water power plant as an illustrative example.


Cyber-physical systems (CPS) Security evaluation System availability Mean time-to-shutdown Stochastic game model 


  1. 1.
    Lee, E.A., Seshia, S.A.: Introduction to Embedded Systems—A Cyber-Physical Systems Approach, 2nd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge (2017)MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ashibani, Y., Mahmoud, Q.H.: Cyber physical systems security: analysis, challenges and solutions. Comput. Secur. 68, 81–97 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gollmann, D., Gurikov, P., Isakov, A., Krotofil, M., Larsen, J., Winnicki, A.: Cyber-physical systems security: experimental analysis of a vinyl acetate monomer plant. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM Workshop on Cyber-Physical System Security, pp. 1–12 (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nguyen, P.H., Ali, S., Yue, T.: Model-based security engineering for cyber-physical systems: a systematic mapping study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 83, 116–135 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Orojloo, H., Abdollahi Azgomi, M.: A game-theoretic approach to model and quantify the security of cyber-physical systems. Comput. Ind. 88, 44–57 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sallhammar, K.: Stochastic models for combined security and dependability evaluation. Ph.D. Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang, Y., Li, J., Meng, K., Lin, C., Cheng, X.: Modeling and security analysis of enterprise network using attack–defense stochastic game Petri nets. Secur. Commun. Netw. 6, 89–99 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Spyridopoulos, T., Karanikas, G., Tryfonas, T., Oikonomou, G.: A game theoretic defence framework against DoS/DDoS cyber attacks. Comput. Secur. 38, 39–50 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moayedi, B.Z., Abdollahi Azgomi, M.: A game theoretic framework for evaluation of the impacts of hackers diversity on security measures. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 99, 45–54 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhu, M., Martinez, S.: Stackelberg-game analysis of correlated attacks in cyber-physical systems. In: Proceedings of American control conference (ACC), pp. 4063–4068 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ma, C.Y., Rao, N.S., Yau, D.K.: A game theoretic study of attack and defense in cyber-physical systems. In: Proceedings of INFOCOM’s Computer Communications Workshops, pp. 708–713, April (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Backhaus, S., Bent, R., Bono, J., Lee, R., Tracey, B., Wolpert, D., Xie, D., Yildiz, Y.: Cyber-physical security: a game theory model of humans interacting over control systems. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 4(4), 2320–2327 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhu, Q., Başar, T.: A dynamic game-theoretic approach to resilient control system design for cascading failures. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on High Confidence Networked Systems, pp. 41–46, April (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vigo, R., Bruni, A., Yuksel, E., Vigo, R., Bruni, A., Yuksel, E.: Security games for cyber-physical systems. Proc. Secur. IT Syst. 8208, 17–32 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sanjab, A., Saad, W.: On bounded rationality in cyber-physical systems security: game-theoretic analysis with application to smart grid protection. In: Proccedings of the Joint Workshop on Cyber-Physical Security and Resilience in Smart Grids (CPSR-SG), pp. 1–6 (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shan, X., Zhuang, J.: Modeling cumulative defensive resource allocation against a strategic attacker in a multi-period multi-target sequential game. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. (2017). Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shan, X., Zhuang, J.: Hybrid defensive resource allocations in the face of partially strategic attackers in a sequential defender–attacker game. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 228, 262–272 (2013)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pindoriya, N.M., Dasgupta, D., Srinivasan, D., Carvalho, M.: Infrastructure security for smart electric grids: a survey. In: Proceedings of Optimization and Security Challenges in Smart Power Grids, pp. 161–180 (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Knowles, W., Prince, D., Hutchison, D., Disso, J.F.P., Jones, K.: A survey of cyber security management in industrial control systems. Int. J. Crit. Infrastruct. Prot. 9, 52–80 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Srivastava, A., Morris, T., Ernster, T., Vellaithurai, C., Pan, S., Adhikari, U.: Modeling cyber-physical vulnerability of the smart grid with incomplete information. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 4(1), 235–244 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ji, K., Wei, D.: Resilient control for wireless networked control systems. Int. J. Control Autom. Syst. 9(2), 285–293 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liu, N., Zhang, J., Zhang, H., Liu, W.: Security assessment for communication networks of power control systems using attack graph and MCDM. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 25(3), 1492–1500 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yampolskiy, M., Horváth, P., Koutsoukos, X.D., Xue, Y., Sztipanovits, J.: A language for describing attacks on cyber-physical systems. Int. J. Crit. Infrastruct. Prot. 8, 40–52 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Krotofil, M., Cárdenas, A.A., Larsen, J., Gollmann, D.: Vulnerabilities of cyber-physical systems to stale data-determining the optimal time to launch attacks. Int. J. Crit. Infrastruct. Prot. 7, 213–232 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cardenas, A.A., Amin, S., Lin, Z.S., Huang, Y.L., Huang, C.Y., Sastry, S.: Attacks against process control systems: risk assessment, detection, and response. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM Symposium on Information, Computer and Communications Security (ASIACCS’11), Hong Kong, pp. 355–366 (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Genge, B., Siaterlis, C., Hohenadel, M.: Impact of network infrastructure parameters to the effectiveness of cyber attacks against industrial control systems. Int. J. Comput. Commun. Control 7(4), 674–687 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hahn, A., Thomas, R.K., Lozano, I., Cardenas, A.: A multi-layered and kill-chain based security analysis framework for cyber-physical systems. Int. J. Crit. Infrastruct. Prot. 11, 39–50 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mitchell, R., Chen, I.R.: Modeling and analysis of attacks and counter defense mechanisms for cyber physical systems. IEEE Trans. Reliab. 65, 350–358 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gollmann, D., Krotofil, M.: Cyber-physical systems security. In: The New Codebreakers, Springer, Berlin, pp. 195–204Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tang, L.A., Yu, X., Kim, S., Gu, Q., Han, J., Leung, A., La Porta, T.: Trustworthiness analysis of sensor data in cyber-physical systems. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 79(3), 383–401 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hu, F., Lu, Y., Vasilakos, A.V., Hao, Q., Ma, R., Patil, Y., Zhang, T., Lu, J., Li, X., Xiong, N.N.: Robust cyber-physical systems: concept, models, and implementation. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 56, 449–475 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rao, N., Poole, S., Ma, C., He, F., Zhuang, J., Yau, D.: Defense of cyber infrastructures against cyber-physical attacks using game-theoretic models. Risk Anal. 36(4), 694–710 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rao, N.S.V., Ma, C.Y.T., He, F., Zhuang, J., Yau, D.: Cyber-physical correlations for infrastructure resilience: a game-theoretic approach. In: IEEE International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION), Salamanca, Spain, July 7–10, pp. 1–8 (2014)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rao, N.S.V., Ma, C.Y.T., Shah, U., Zhuang, J., He, F., Yau, D.K.: On resilience of cyber-physical infrastructures using discrete product-form games. In: IEEE International Conference on Information Fusion (Fusion), Washington, DC, USA, July 6–9, pp. 1451–1458 (2015)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rao, N.S.V., Ma, C.Y.T., Hausken, K., He, F., Zhuang, J.: Game-theoretic strategies for systems of components using product-form utilities. In: IEEE International Conference on Multisensor Fusion and Integration for Intelligent Systems, Kongresshaus Baden-Baden, Germany, Sep 19–21, pp. 341–346 (2016)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kopetz, H.: Real-Time Systems: Design Principles for Distributed Embedded Applications, Real-Time Systems Series, 2 edn. Springer Science & Business Media (2011)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ciardo, G., Muppala, J., Trivedi, K.: SPNP: stochastic petri net package. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop Petri Nets and Performance Models, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 142–151 (1989)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Liang, X., Xiao, Y.: Game theory for network security. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 15(1), 472–486 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lye, K.W., Wing, J.M.: Game strategies in network security. Int. J. Inf. Secur. 4(1), 71–86 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Njilla, L.Y., Pissinou, N., Makki, K.: Game theoretic modeling of security and trust relationship in cyberspace. Int. J. Commun Syst 29, 1500–1512 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    United States Securities and Exchanges Commission: CF disclosure guidance: topic no. 2-Cybersecurity., October 13 (2011)
  42. 42.
    Trivedi, K.S.: Probability and statistics with reliability. In: Queuing, and Computer Science Applications, 2nd ed. Wiley, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Madan, B., Goševa-Popstojanova, K., Vaidyanathan, K., Trivedi, K.S.: A method for modeling and quantifying the security attributes of intrusion tolerant systems. Perform. Eval. 56(1), 167–186 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tan, W., Marquez, H.J., Chen, T., Liu, J.: Analysis and control of a nonlinear boiler-turbine unit. J. Process Control 15(8), 883–891 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Stouffer, K., Falco, J., Scarfone, K.: Guide to industrial control systems (ICS) security. In: NIST Special Publication, pp. 800–882 (2011)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hills, R.: Common VPN security flaws, white paper, NTA Monitor, Rochester, United Kingdom. (2005)
  47. 47.
    Alsiherov, F., Kim, T.: Research trend on secure SADA network technology and methods. WSEAS Trans. Syst. Control 8(5), 635–645 (2010)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rahimi, S., Zargham, M.: Analysis of the security of VPN configurations in industrial control environments. Int. J. Crit. Infrastruct. Prot. 5(1), 3–13 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Krotofil, M., Larsen, J.: Are you threatening my hazards?. In: Proceeding of 9th International Workshop on Security (IWSEC’14), Hirosaki, Japan, pp. 17–32, August (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Trustworthy Computing Laboratory (TwCL), School of Computer EngineeringIran University of Science and TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations