Modeling and Analysis of Deception Games Based on Hypergame Theory

  • Jin-Hee ChoEmail author
  • Mu Zhu
  • Munindar Singh


In this chapter, we discuss a deception game where attackers and defenders can have different perceptions towards a given situation. Although existing game theories have considered incomplete information to consider uncertainty, how players’ different perceptions or misperceptions can affect their decision-making has not been fully addressed. In particular, we discuss hypergame theory which has been used to resolve conflicts under uncertainty. In this chapter, we examine how a player’s perception (or misperception) affects their decision-making in choosing a best strategy based on hypergame theory. To deliver a concrete idea on how the attack–defense game can be modeled based on hypergame theory, we model a simple cybergame scenario and demonstrate an example probability model using Stochastic Petri Nets. Through the evaluation of the model, we show the experimental results to deliver insightful findings in terms of the relationships between perceptions by different players (i.e., an attacker or a defender), their chosen best strategies, and corresponding utilities. Lastly, we measure performance of the attacker and the defender in terms of attack success probability and mean time to security failure.


  1. 1.
    Abass AAA, Xiao L, Mandayam NB, Gajic Z (2017) Evolutionary game theoretic analysis of advanced persistent threats against cloud storage. IEEE Access 5:8482–8491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aljefri YM, Bashar MA, Fang L, Hipel KW (2017) First-level hypergame for investigating misperception in conflicts. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems PP(99):1–18Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Almeshekah MH, Spafford EH (2016) Cyber security deception. In: Cyber Deception - Building the Scientific Foundation, Springer, pp 25–52Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bell JB, Whaley B (1991) Cheating and Deception. Transaction PublishersGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bennett P (1977) Toward a theory of hypergames. Omega 5(6):749–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Caddell JW (2004) Deception 101-primer on deception. Tech. rep., DTIC DocumentGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carroll TE, Grosu D (2011) A game theoretic investigation of deception in network security. Security and Communication Networks 4(10):1162–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen P, Desmet L, Huygens C (2014) A study on Advanced Persistent Threats. In: Proceedings of the IFIP International Conference on Communications and Multimedia Security, Springer, pp 63–72Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cho JH, Wang Y, Chen IR, Chan KS, Swami A (2017) A survey on modeling and optimizing multi-objective systems. IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials 19(3):1867–1901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Daniel DC, Herbig KL (1982) Strategic Military Deception. PergamonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fang X, Zhai L, Jia Z, Bai W (2014) A game model for predicting the attack path of apt. In: 2014 IEEE 12th International Conference on Dependable, Autonomic and Secure Computing (DASC), IEEE, pp 491–495Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Feng X, Zheng Z, Hu P, Cansever D, Mohapatra P (2015) Stealthy attacks meets insider threats: a three-player game model. In: IEEE Military Communications Conference (MILCOM 2015), IEEE, pp 25–30Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fraser NM, Hipel KW (1984) Conflict Analysis: Models and Resolutions, North-Holland Series in System Science and Engineering, vol 2. A. P. Sage, North-HollandGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gaertner FC (2003) Byzantine failures and security: Arbitrary is not (always) random. Tech. rep., EPFLGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garg N, Grosu D (2007) Deception in honeynets: A game-theoretic analysis. In: IEEE SMC Information Assurance and Security Workshop (IAW’07), IEEE, pp 107–113Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gharesifard B, Cortés J (2010) Evolution of the perception about the opponent in hypergames. In: Proceedings of the 49th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp 1076–1081Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gharesifard B, Cortés J (2012) Evolution of players’ misperceptions in hypergames under perfect observations. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 57(7):1627–1640MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    House JT, Cybenko G (2010) Hypergame theory applied to cyber attack and defense. In: Proceedings of the SPIE Conference on Sensors, and Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (C3I) Technologies for Homeland Security and Homeland Defense IX, vol 766604Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hu P, Li H, Fu H, Cansever D, Mohapatra P (2015) Dynamic defense strategy against advanced persistent threat with insiders. In: 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM), IEEE, pp 747–755Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kanazawa T, Ushio T, Yamasaki T (2007) Replicator dynamics of evolutionary hypergames. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans 37(1):132–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kovach NS, Gibson AS, Lamont GB (2015) Hypergame theory: A model for conflict, misperception, and deception. Game Theory 2015:Article ID 570639, 20 pagesGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Okhravi H, Rabe MA, Leonard WG, Hobson TR, Bigelow D, Streilein WW (2013) Survey of cyber moving targets. Tech. Rep. 1166, Lexington Lincoln Lab, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Putro US, Kijima K, Takahashi S (2000) Adaptive learning of hypergame situations using a genetic algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans 30(5):562–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rass S, König S, Schauer S (2017) Defending against advanced persistent threats using game-theory. PloS one 12(1):e0168675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sasaki Y (2014) Subjective rationalizability in hypergames. Advances in Decision Sciences 2014(Article ID 263615):7 pagesGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sharp WL (2006) Military deception. Tech. rep., joint Publication 3-13.4Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tadelis S (2013) Game Theory: An Introduction. Princeton University PresszbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Van Dijk M, Juels A, Oprea A, Rivest RL (2013) Flipit: The game of “stealthy takeover”. Journal of Cryptology 26(4):655–713MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vane R (2006) Advances in hypergame theory. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Game-Theoretic and Decision Theoretic Agents, Hakodate, JapanGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vane RR (2000) Hypergame Theory for DTGT Agents. American Association for Artificial IntelligenceGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vane RR (2005) Planning for terrorist-caused emergencies. In: Proceedings of the Winter Simulation ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vane RR, Lehner PE (1999) Using hypergames to select plans in adversarial environments. In: Parsons S, Wooldridge MJ (eds) Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Game Theoretic and Decision Theoretic Agents, pp 103–111Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yin Y, An B, Vorobeychik Y, Zhuang J (2013) Optimal deceptive strategies in security games: A preliminary study. In: Proc. of AAAIGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zhang M, Zheng Z, Shroff NB (2015) A game theoretic model for defending against stealthy attacks with limited resources. In: International Conference on Decision and Game Theory for Security, Springer, pp 93–112Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Virginia TechFalls ChurchUSA
  2. 2.North Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations