Skip to main content

Hybrid Dependencies Between Cyber and Physical Systems

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 998))

Abstract

Situational awareness is often a matter of detailed local information and proportionally limited view on the bigger picture. Conversely, the big picture avoids complicating details, and as such displays the system components as atomic “black boxes”. This work proposes a combination of local and global views, accounting for a common practical division of physical and cyber domains, each of which have their own group of experts and management processes. We identify a small set of data items that is required about the physical and cyber parts of a system, along with a high-level description of how these parts interoperate. From these three ingredients, which we call physical, cyber and hybrid “awareness” (meaning just knowledge about what is there), we construct a simulation model to study cascading effects and indirect implications of distortions in a cyber-physical system. Our simulation model is composed from coupled Mealy automata, and we show an instance of it using a small cyber-physical infrastructure. This extends the awareness from “knowing what is” to “knowing what could happen next”, and as such addresses a core duty of effective risk management. Manifold extensions to this model are imaginable and discussed in the aftermath of the definition and example demonstration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bañuls, V.A., Turoff, M.: Scenario construction via delphi and cross-impact analysis. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 78(9), 1579–1602 (2011). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162511000667. The Delphi technique: Past, present, and future prospects

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Carreras, B.A., Newman, D.E., Gradney, P., Lynch, V.E., Dobson, I.: Interdependent risk in interacting infrastructure systems. In: 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS 2007, p. 112, January 2007

    Google Scholar 

  3. Dobson, I.: Estimating the propagation and extent of cascading line outages from utility data with a branching process. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 27(4), 2146–2155 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gordon, T., Hayward, H.: Initial experiments with the cross impact matrix method of forecasting. Futures 1(2), 100–116 (1968). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328768800035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Guo, H., Zheng, C., Iu, H.H.C., Fernando, T.: A critical review of cascading failure analysis and modeling of power system. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 80, 9–22 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. König, S., Gouglidis, A.: Random damage in interconnected networks, pp. 185–201. Springer, Cham (2018)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. König, S., Schauer, S., Rass, S.: A stochastic framework for prediction of malware spreading in heterogeneous networks. In: Proceedings of NordSec Conference 2016 Secure IT Systems, Oulu, Finland, pp. 67–81. Springer (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kotzanikolaou, P., Theoharidou, M., Gritzalis, D.: Cascading effects of common-cause failures in critical infrastructures. In: Butts, J., Shenoi, S. (eds.) Critical Infrastructure Protection VII, pp. 171–182. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Massaro, E., Bagnoli, F.: Epidemic spreading and risk perception in multiplex networks: a self-organized percolation method. Phys. Rev. E 90(5), 052817 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.90.052817

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. McGee, S., Frittman, J., James Ahn, S., Murray, S.: Implications of cascading effects for the hyogo framework. Int. J. Disaster Resil. Built Environ. 7, 144–157 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ouyang, M.: Review on modeling and simulation of interdependent critical infrastructure systems. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 121, 43–60 (2014). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832013002056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pagani, G.A., Aiello, M.: The power grid as a complex network: a survey. Phys. A: Stat. Mech. Appl. 392(11), 2688–2700 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Paz, A., Rheinboldt, W.: Introduction to Probabilistic Automata. Elsevier Science, Burlington (2014). http://gbv.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1901751

    Google Scholar 

  14. Qi, J., Dobson, I., Mei, S.: Towards estimating the statistics of simulated cascades of outages with branching processes. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 28(3), 3410–3419 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rabin, M.O.: Probabilistic automata. Inform. Control 6(3), 230–245 (1963). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0019-9958(63)90290-0

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Rahnamay-Naeini, M., Hayat, M.M.: Cascading failures in interdependent infrastructures: an interdependent Markov-chain approach. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, pp. 1997–2006. (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/tsg.2016.2539823

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Rahnamay-Naeini, M., Wang, Z., Ghani, N., Mammoli, A., Hayat, M.M.: Stochastic analysis of cascading-failure dynamics in power grids. IEEE Trans. Power Syst., pp. 1767–1779. (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/tpwrs.2013.2297276

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. SAURON: Scalable multidimensionAl sitUation awaReness sOlution for protectiNg european ports, December 2018. https://www.sauronproject.eu/

  19. Troina, A.: Probabilistic Timed Automata for Security Analysis and Design. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, Scotts Valley (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Turoff, M.: An alternative approach to cross impact analysis. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 3, 309–339 (1971). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162571800215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wang, Z., Scaglione, A., Thomas, R.J.: A Markov-transition model for cascading failures in power grids. In: 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE, January 2012. https://doi.org/10.1109/hicss.2012.63

  22. Wu, S.J., Chu, M.T.: Markov chains with memory, tensor formulation, and the dynamics of power iteration. Appl. Math. Comput. 303(C), 226–239 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2017.01.030

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by the European Commission’s Project SAURON (Scalable multidimensional situation awareness solution for protecting European ports) under the HORIZON 2020 Framework (Grant No. 740477).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sandra König .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

König, S., Rass, S., Rainer, B., Schauer, S. (2019). Hybrid Dependencies Between Cyber and Physical Systems. In: Arai, K., Bhatia, R., Kapoor, S. (eds) Intelligent Computing. CompCom 2019. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 998. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22868-2_40

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics