Advertisement

AMICI: An Assessment Platform for Multi-domain Security Experimentation on Critical Infrastructures

  • Béla Genge
  • Christos Siaterlis
  • Marc Hohenadel
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7722)

Abstract

This paper presents AMICI, a new Assessment/analysis platform for Multiple Interdependent Critical Infrastructures (CIs). Its architecture builds on our previous work and uses Emulab to recreate ICT software and hardware components and Simulink to run the physical process models. Our previous framework is extended with software components to provide a set of capabilities that would enable the analysis of complex interdependencies between multiple CIs: flexible integration of multiple physical process models; opened architecture to enable interaction with ad-hoc software; support experimentation with real software/malware; automated experiment management capabilities. The applicability of the approach is proven through a case study involving three CIs: ICT, power grid and railway.

Keywords

Critical Infrastructure security experimentation testbed 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bobbio, A., Bonanni, G., Ciancamerla, E., Clemente, R., Iacomini, A., Minichino, M., Scarlatti, A., Terruggia, R., Zendri, E.: Unavailability of critical scada communication links interconnecting a power grid and a telco network. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 95(12), 1345–1357 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen, T., Abu-Nimeh, S.: Lessons from Stuxnet. Computer 44(4), 91–93 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McElroy, D., Williams, C.: Flame: world’s most complex computer virus exposed (2012), http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9295938/Flame-worlds-most-complex-computer-virus-exposed.html (accessed June 2012)
  4. 4.
    Rinaldi, S., Peerenboom, J., Kelly, T.: Identifying, understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies. IEEE Control Systems 21(6), 11–25 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Svendsen, N.K., Wolthusen, S.D.: An analysis of cyclical interdependencies in critical infrastructures. In: Lopez, J., Hämmerli, B.M. (eds.) CRITIS 2007. LNCS, vol. 5141, pp. 25–36. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Di Giorgio, A., Liberati, F.: Interdependency modeling and analysis of critical infrastructures based on dynamic bayesian networks. In: 2011 19th Mediterranean Conference on Control Automation (MED), pp. 791–797 (June 2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chertov, R., Fahmy, S., Shroff, N.B.: Fidelity of network simulation and emulation: A case study of tcp-targeted denial of service attacks. ACM Trans. Model. Comput. Simul. 19(1), 4:1–4:29 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davis, C., Tate, J., Okhravi, H., Grier, C., Overbye, T., Nicol, D.: SCADA cyber security testbed development. In: 38th North American Power Symposium, NAPS 2006, pp. 483–488 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hopkinson, K., Wang, X., Giovanini, R., Thorp, J., Birman, K., Coury, D.: Epochs: a platform for agent-based electric power and communication simulation built from commercial off-the-shelf components. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 21(2), 548–558 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McDonald, M., Conrad, G., Service, T., Cassidy, R.: Cyber effects analysis using VCSE. Technical Report, SAND2008-5954, Sandia National Laboratories (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Queiroz, C., Mahmood, A., Hu, J., Tari, Z., Yu, X.: Building a SCADA security testbed. In: Proc. of the 2009 Third International Conference on Network and System Security, pp. 357–364 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chabukswar, R., Sinopoli, B., Karsai, B., Giani, A., Neema, H., Davis, A.: Simulation of network attacks on SCADA systems. In: 1st Workshop on Secure Control Systems, Cyber Physical Systems Week (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mirkovic, J., Benzel, T., Faber, T., Braden, R., Wroclawski, J., Schwab, S.: The DETER project: Advancing the science of cyber security experimentation and test. In: Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Technologies for Homeland Security (HST), pp. 1–7 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Genge, B., Siaterlis, C., Fovino, I.N., Masera, M.: A cyber-physical experimentation environment for the security analysis of networked industrial control systems. Computers & Electrical Engineering 38(5), 1146–1161 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Genge, B., Siaterlis, C., Hohenadel, M.: Impact of network infrastructure parameters to the effectiveness of cyber attacks against industrial control systems. International Journal of Computers, Communications & Control 7(4), 673–686 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    White, B., Lepreau, J., Stoller, L., Ricci, R., Guruprasad, S., Newbold, M., Hibler, M., Barb, C., Joglekar, A.: An integrated experimental environment for distributed systems and networks. In: Proc. of the 5th Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, pp. 255–270 (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Siaterlis, C., Garcia, A., Genge, B.: On the use of Emulab testbeds for scientifically rigorous experiments. IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials PP(99), 1–14 (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Siaterlis, C., Masera, M.: A survey of software tools for the creation of networked testbeds. International Journal On Advances in Security 3(2), 1–12 (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zabbix (2012), http://www.zabbix.com/ (accessed June 2012)
  20. 20.
    Ríos, M.A., Ramos, G.: Power system modelling for urban massive transportation systems. In: Infrastructure Design, Signalling and Security in Railway, pp. 179–202 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Béla Genge
    • 1
  • Christos Siaterlis
    • 1
  • Marc Hohenadel
    • 1
  1. 1.Joint Research Centre, European CommissionInstitute for the Protection and Security of the CitizenIspraItaly

Personalised recommendations