Advertisement

Network Elicitation in Adversarial Environment

  • Marcin DziubińskiEmail author
  • Piotr Sankowski
  • Qiang Zhang
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9996)

Abstract

We study a problem of a defender who wants to protect a network against contagious attack by an intelligent adversary. The defender could only protect a fixed number of nodes and does not know the network. Each of the nodes in the network does not know the network either, but knows his/her neighbours only. We propose an incentive compatible mechanism allowing the defender to elicit information about the whole network. The mechanism is efficient in the sense that under truthful reports it assigns the protection optimally.

Keywords

Incentive Compatibility Infected Node Allocation Function Residual Network Truthful Mechanism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Acemoglu, D., Malekian, A., Ozdaglar, A.: Network Security and Contagion. MIT Mimeo, New York (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aspnes, J., Chang, K., Yampolskiy, A.: Inoculation strategies for victims of viruses and the sum-of-squares partition problem. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 72(6), 1077–1093 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boesch, F., Satyanarayana, A., Suffel, C.: A survey of some network reliability analysis and synthesis results. Networks 54(2), 99–107 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cerdeiro, D., Dziubiński, M., Goyal, S.: Individual security and network design. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, EC 2014, pp. 205–206. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cunningham, W.: Optimal attack and reinforcement of a network. J. ACM 32(3), 549–61 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Drange, P.G., Dregi, M.S., Hof, P.: On the computational complexity of vertex integrity and component order connectivity. In: Ahn, H.-K., Shin, C.-S. (eds.) ISAAC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8889, pp. 285–297. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-13075-0_23 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dziubiński, M., Goyal, S.: Network design and defence. Games Econ. Behav. 79(1), 30–43 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goyal, S., Vigier, A.: Attack, defence, and contagion in networks. Rev. Econ. Stud. 81(4), 1518–1542 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gueye, A., Marbukh, V.: Towards a metric for communication network vulnerability to attacks: a game theoretic approach. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International ICTS Conference on Game Theory for Networks, GameNets 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gueye, A., Walrand, J.C., Anantharam, V.: Design of network topology in an adversarial environment. In: Alpcan, T., Buttyán, L., Baras, J.S. (eds.) GameSec 2010. LNCS, vol. 6442, pp. 1–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-17197-0_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gueye, A., Walrand, J., Anantharam, V.: A network topology design game: how to choose communication links in an adversarial environment. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International ICTS Conference on Game Theory for Networks, GameNets 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    He, J., Liang, H., Yuan, H.: Controlling infection by blocking nodes and links simultaneously. In: Chen, N., Elkind, E., Koutsoupias, E. (eds.) Internet and Network Economics. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7090, pp. 206–217. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jain, M., An, B., Tambe, M.: An overview of recent application trends at the AAMAS conference: security, sustainability and safety. AI Mag. 33(3), 14–28 (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kimura, M., Saito, K., Motoda, H.: Blocking links to minimize contamination spread in a social network. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discovery Data 3(2), 9: 1–9: 23 (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kovenock, D., Roberson, B.: The optimal defense of networks of targets. Purdue University Economics Working Papers 1251, Purdue University, Department of Economics (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Laszka, A., Szeszlér, D., Buttyán, L.: Game-theoretic robustness of many-to-one networks. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International ICTS Conference on Game Theory for Networks, GameNets 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Laszka, A., Szeszlér, D., Buttyán, L.: Linear loss function for the network blocking game: an efficient model for measuring network robustness and link criticality. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Decision and Game Theory for Security, GameSec 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lelarge, M., Bolot, J.: A local mean field analysis of security investments in networks. In: Feigenbaum, J., Yang, Y.R. (eds.) NetEcon, pp. 25–30. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lelarge, M., Bolot, J.: Network externalities and the deployment of security features and protocols in the internet. ACM SIGMETRICS Perform. Eval. Rev. - SIGMETRICS 36(1), 37–48 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moscibroda, T., Schmid, S., Wattenhofer, R.: The price of malice: a game-theoretic framework for malicious behavior. Internet Math. 6(2), 125–156 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yang, R., Kiekintveld, C., Ordónez, F., Tambe, M., John, R.: Improving resource allocation strategies against human adversaries in security games: an extended study. Artif. Intell. 195, 440–469 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marcin Dziubiński
    • 1
    Email author
  • Piotr Sankowski
    • 1
  • Qiang Zhang
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of InformaticsUniversity of WarsawWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations