## Abstract

Modern cyber-physical systems rely on dependable communication channels to accomplish cooperative tasks, such as forming and maintaining a coordinated platooning configuration in groups of interconnected vehicles. We define and study a class of adversary attacks that tamper with the temporal characteristics of the communication channels, thus leading to delays in the signals received by certain network nodes. We show how such attacks may affect the stability of the overall interconnection, even when the number of compromised channels is limited. Our algorithms allow us to identify the links that are inherently less robust to this class of attacks and to study the resilience of different network topologies when the attacker goal is to minimize the number of compromised communication channels. Based on our numerical results, we reveal a relation between the robustness of a certain network topology and the degree distribution of its nodes.

## References

- 1.M. di Bernardo, A. Salvi, S. Santini, Distributed consensus strategy for platooning of vehicles in the presence of time-varying heterogeneous communication delays. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst.
**16**(1), 102–112 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 2.R. Poovendran, K. Sampigethaya, S.K.S. Gupta, I. Lee, K.V. Prasad, D. Corman, J.L. Paunicka, Special issue on cyber-physical systems. Proc. IEEE
**100**(1), 6–12 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 3.J. Slay, M. Miller, Lessons learned from the Maroochy water breach, in
*International Conference on Critical Infrastructure Protection*(Springer, Berlin, 2007), pp. 73–82Google Scholar - 4.J.P. Farwell, R. Rohozinski, Stuxnet and the future of cyber war. Survival
**53**(1), 23–40 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 5.A.A. Cárdenas, S. Amin, Z.-S. Lin, Y.-L. Huang, C.-Y. Huang, S. Sastry, Attacks against process control systems: risk assessment, detection, and response, in
*Proceedings of the 6th ACM Symposium on Information, Computer and Communications Security*(ACM, New York, 2011), pp. 355–366Google Scholar - 6.F. Pasqualetti, F. Dörfler, F. Bullo, Attack detection and identification in cyber-physical systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control
**58**(11), 2715–2729 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 7.J.K. Hale, E.F. Infante, F.-S.P. Tsen, Stability in linear delay equations. DTIC Document, Tech. Rep., 1982Google Scholar
- 8.E.A. Lee, The past, present and future of cyber-physical systems: a focus on models. Sensors
**15**(3), 4837–4869 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 9.R. Olfati-Saber, R.M. Murray, Consensus problems in networks of agents with switching topology and time-delays. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control
**49**(9), 1520–1533 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 10.A. Seuret, D.V. Dimarogonas, K.H. Johansson, Consensus under communication delays, in
*47th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, CDC 2008*(IEEE, Piscataway, 2008), pp. 4922–4927Google Scholar - 11.P.-A. Bliman, LMI characterization of the strong delay-independent stability of linear delay systems via quadratic Lyapunov–Krasovskii functionals. Syst. Control Lett.
**43**(4), 263–274 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 12.X. Li, C.E. De Souza, Delay-dependent robust stability and stabilization of uncertain linear delay systems: a linear matrix inequality approach. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control
**42**(8), 1144–1148 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 13.S.-I. Niculescu, Stability and hyperbolicity of linear systems with delayed state: a matrix-pencil approach. IMA J. Math. Control Inf.
**15**(4), 331–347 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 14.J. Chen, G. Gu, C.N. Nett, A new method for computing delay margins for stability of linear delay systems, in
*Proceedings of the 33rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control*, vol. 1 (IEEE, Piscataway, 1994), pp. 433–437Google Scholar - 15.Y. Shoukry, J. Araujo, P. Tabuada, M. Srivastava, K.H. Johansson, Minimax control for cyber-physical systems under network packet scheduling attacks, in
*Proceedings of the 2nd ACM International Conference on High Confidence Networked Systems*(ACM, New York, 2013), pp. 93–100Google Scholar - 16.J. Moon, T. Başar, Minimax control over unreliable communication channels. Automatica
**59**, 182–193 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 17.G. Fiore, Y.H. Chang, Q. Hu, M.D. Di Benedetto, C.J. Tomlin, Secure state estimation for cyber physical systems with sparse malicious packet drops, in
*American Control Conference (ACC)*(IEEE, Piscataway, 2017), pp. 1898–1903Google Scholar - 18.W. Ren, R.W. Beard,
*Distributed Consensus in Multi-Vehicle Cooperative Control*(Springer, Berlin, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 19.F. Pasqualetti, F. Dörfler, F. Bullo, Attack detection and identification in cyber-physical systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control
**58**(11), 2715–2729 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 20.J.P. Hespanha, P. Naghshtabrizi, Y. Xu, A survey of recent results in networked control systems. Proc. IEEE
**95**(1), 138–162 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 21.W. Michiels, S.-I. Niculescu, Characterization of delay-independent stability and delay interference phenomena. SIAM J. Control Optim.
**45**(6), 2138–2155 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 22.M. Fazel, Matrix rank minimization with applications, Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 2002Google Scholar
- 23.M. Jaggi, M. Sulovsk, et al., A simple algorithm for nuclear norm regularized problems, in
*Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-10)*(2010), pp. 471–478Google Scholar - 24.P. Erdös, A. Rényi, On random graphs, I. Publ. Math. Debr.
**6**, 290–297 (1959)zbMATHGoogle Scholar