Time-Delay Attacks in Network Systems

  • Gianluca BianchinEmail author
  • Fabio Pasqualetti


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.


  1. 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. 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. 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. 4.
    J.P. Farwell, R. Rohozinski, Stuxnet and the future of cyber war. Survival 53(1), 23–40 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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. 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. 7.
    J.K. Hale, E.F. Infante, F.-S.P. Tsen, Stability in linear delay equations. DTIC Document, Tech. Rep., 1982Google Scholar
  8. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 16.
    J. Moon, T. Başar, Minimax control over unreliable communication channels. Automatica 59, 182–193 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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. 18.
    W. Ren, R.W. Beard, Distributed Consensus in Multi-Vehicle Cooperative Control (Springer, Berlin, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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. 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. 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. 22.
    M. Fazel, Matrix rank minimization with applications, Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 2002Google Scholar
  23. 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. 24.
    P. Erdös, A. Rényi, On random graphs, I. Publ. Math. Debr. 6, 290–297 (1959)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of California, RiversideRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations