Advertisement

Addressing Interdependencies of Complex Technical Networks

  • Wolfgang KrögerEmail author
  • Cen Nan
Chapter
Part of the Understanding Complex Systems book series (UCS)

Abstract

This chapter deals with large-scale technical systems, i.e., a wide-area network of physical-engineered infrastructures that function synergistically to provide a continuous flow of essential goods and services, groups within our societies or societies as a whole (increasingly) depend on.

Keywords

Transmission Line Infrastructure System Railway System Freight Train High Level Architecture 
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.
    Newman DE, Carreras BA, Degala NS, Dobson I. Risk Metrics for Dynamic Complex Infrastructure Systems Such as the Power Transmission Grid. Proceedings of the 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, p. 2082–2090, 2012.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kröger W, Zio E. Vulnerable Systems, Springer, 2011.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Habenberger J, Kröger W, Probst P, Raschke M, Schläpfer M, Birchmeier J. Stromversorgungssystem Schweiz. BABS Report: ETH Zurich, 2009.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bilis EI, Kröger W, Nan C. Performance of Electric Power Systems under Physical Malicious Attacks. IEEE Systems Journal. Vol. 7(4), p.854–865, 2013.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eusgeld I, Kröger W, Sansavini G, Schläpfer M, Zio E. The role of network theory and object-oriented modeling within a framework for the vulnerability analysis of critical infrastructures. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. Vol. 94, p.954–963, 2009.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Igure VM, Laughter SA, Williams RD. Security Issues in SCADA Networks. Journal of, Computers and Security, Vol. 25, p. 498–506, 2006.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boyer SA. SCADA supervisory control and data acquisition. 3rd ed. Research Triangle Park: ISA; 2004.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stouffer K., Falco J., Scarfone K. Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security. National Institute of Standards and Technology; 2008.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nan C, Kröger W, Eusgeld I. Focal Report: Study of Common Cause Failures of SCADA System at Substation Level, BABS Report: ETH Zurich, 2011.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Balducelli C, Bologna S, Lavalle L, Vicoli G. Safeguarding information intensive critical infrastructures against novel types of emerging failures. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. Vol. 92, p. 1218–1229, 2007.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nai Fovino I, Carcano A, Masera M, Trombetta A. An experimental investigation of malware attacks on SCADA systems. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection. Vol. 2, p. 139–145, 2009.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    SWISSGRID: Die Nationale Netzgesellschaft. 2007.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aitel D. Cybersecurity Essentials for Electric Operators. The Electricity Journal. 2013.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Slay J, Miller M. Lessons learned from the Maroochy water breach. IFIP International Federation for Information Processing. Vol. 253, p. 73–82, 2008.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    (FPL) FPaLC. FPL announces preliminary findings of outage investigation. 2008.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Christansson H, Luiijf E. Creating a European SCADA Security Testbed. IFIP International Federation for Information Processing. Boston: Springer; p. 237–247, 2007.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhou L. Forcal Report: Vulnerability Analysis of Industrial Control Systems - Part B: Statistics and analysis of industrial security incidents, Challenges of ICS security research. BABS Report: ETH Zurich, 2011.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Trantopoulos K. Focal Report: Vulnerability of Critical Infrastructrures-Rail Transport Switzerland. BABS Report: ETH Zurich, 2010.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kröger W, Nan C, Trantopoulos K, Zhou L, Eusgeld I. Report: Interdependencies. BABS Report: ETH Zurich, 2009.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Railroad Accident Brief: Accident DCA-01-MR-004. In: Board USNTS, editor.NTSB/RAB-04/08.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rinaldi SM, Peerenboom JP, Kelly TK. Identifying, Understanding, and Analyzing Critical Infrastructure Interdependencies. IEEE Control Systems Magazine. 2001; Vol. 21: p. 11–25.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Griot C. Modelling and simulation for critical infrastructure interdependency assessment: a meta-review for model characterisation. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure. Vol. 6, p. 363–379, 2010.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pederson P, Dudenhoeffer D, Hartly S, Permann M. Critical Infrastructure Interdependency Modeling: A Survey of U.S and International Research. Idaho National Laboratory; 2006.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zimmerman R. Decision-making and the vulnerability of interdependent critical infrastructure. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. p. 4059–4063, 2004.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    International Risk Governance Council. Policy Brief: Managing and reducing social vulnerabilities from coupled critical infrastructures. Geneva, Switzerland: IRGC; 2007.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kröger W. Critical infrastructure at risk: A Need For A New Conceptual Approach and Extended Analytical Tools. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. Vol. 93, p. 1781–1787, 2008.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Eusgeld I, Nan C, Dietz S. “System-of-systems” Approach for Interdependent Critical Infrastructures. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. Vol. 96, p. 679–686, 2011.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Leontief WW. Input-output economics. 2nd Ed ed: Oxford University Press, New York; 1986.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Setola R, De Porcellinis S, Sforna M. Critical infrastructure dependency assessment using the input-output inoperability model. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection. Vol. 2, p. 170–178, 2009.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Haimes YY, Horowitz BM, Lambert JH, Santos JR, Lian C, Crowther KG. Inoperability Input-Output Model for Interdependent Infrastructure Sectors. I: Theory and Methodology. Journal of Infrastructure Systems. Vol. 11, p. 67–79, 2005.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Haimes YY, Horowitz BM, Lambert JH, Santos J, Crowther K, Lian C. Inoperability Input-Output Model for Interdependent Infrastructure Sectors. II: Case Studies. Journal of Infrastructure Systems. Vol. 11, p. 80–92, 2005.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Trantopoulos K. Focal Report: Methods for the Vulnerability Assessment of Multi-layer Infrastructure Networks-The Swiss Rail System. BABS Report: ETH Zurich, 2011.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Klein R, Rome E, Beyel C, Linnemann R, Reinhardt W. Information Modelling and Simulation in large interdependent Critical Infrastructures in IRRIIS. IRRIS Report 2007.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Steen Mv. Graph Theory and Complex Networks: An Introduction. 1 ed: Maarten van Steen; 2010.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Buldyrev SV, Parshani R, Paul G, Stanley HE, Havlin S. Catastrophic cascade of failures in interdependent networks. Nature. Vol. 464, p. 1025–1028, 2010.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Johansson J, Hassel H. An approach for modelling interdependent infrastructures in the context of vulnerability analysis. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. Vol. 95, p. 1335–1344, 2010. Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Eusgeld I, Nan C. Creating a simulation environment for critical infrastructure interdependencies study. IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, p. 2104–2108, Hong Kong, 2009.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schläpfer M, Kessler T, Kröger W. Reliability Analysis of Electric Power Systems Using an Object-oriented Hybrid Modeling Approach. 16th power systems computation conference. Glasgow. 2008.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Min H-SJ, Beyeler W, Brown T, Son YJ, Jones AT. Toward modeling and simulation of critical national infrastructure interdependencies. IIE Transactions. Vol. 39, p. 57–71, 2007.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Di Giorgio A, Liberati F. Interdependency modeling and analysis of critical infrastructures based on Dynamic Bayesian Networks. 19th Mediterranean Conference on Control & Automation (MED), p. 791–797, 2011.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    HadjSaid N, Tranchita C, Rozel B, Viziteu M, Caire R. Modeling cyber and physical interdependencies - Application in ICT and power grids. Power Systems Conference and Exposition. p. 1–6, 2009.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    D’Agostino G, Bologna S, Fioriti V, Casalicchio E, Brasca L, Ciapessoni E, et al. Methodologies for inter-dependency assessment. 5th International Conference on Critical Infrastructure (CRIS). p. 1–7, 2010.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Casalicchio E, Bologna S, Brasca L, Buschi S, Ciapessoni E, D’Agostino G, et al. Inter-dependency Assessment in the ICT-PS Network: The MIA Project Results. In: Xenakis C, Wolthusen S, editors. Critical Information Infrastructures Security: Springer, Berlin Heidelberg; p. 1–12, 2011.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Fioriti V, D’Agostino G, Bologna S. On Modeling and Measuring Inter-dependencies among Critical Infrastructures. Proceedings of the 2010 Complexity in Engineering: IEEE Computer Society, p. 85–87, 2010.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bloomfield R, Chozos N, Nobles P. Infrastructure interdependency analysis: Introductory research review. 2009.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gorbil G, Gelenbe E. Design of a Mobile Agent-Based Adaptive Communication Middleware for Federations of Critical Infrastructure Simulations. Proceedings of CRITIS 2009. 2009.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    DoD. Department of Defense (DOD): High Level Architecture Interface Specification. 1998.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    IEEE. IEEE Standard for Modeling and Simulation High Level Architecture (HLA)—Framework and Rules. IEEE Std 1516–2000, 2000.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hopkinson KM, Giovanini R, Wang XR. EPOCHS: Integrated Commercial Off-the-Shelf Software For Agent-based Electric Power and Communication Simulation. Proceedings of the 2003 Winter Simulation Conference. p. 1158–1166, 2003.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rehtanz C. Autonomous systems and intelligent agents in power system control and operation: Springer; 2003.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lees M, Logan B, Theodoropoulos G. Distributed Simulation of Agent-based Systems with HLA. ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer, Simulation. Vol. 17(3), 2007.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zhao Z, Albada DV, Sloot P. Agent-Based Flow Control for HLA Components. Simulation. Vol. 81, p. 487–501, 2005.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Beeker ER, Page EH. A Case Study of the Development and Use of a MANA-Based Federation for Studying U.S. Border Operations. Proceedings of the 38th Conference on Winter Simulation, p. 841–847, 2006.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lieshout Fv, Cornelissen F, Neuteboom J. Simulating Rail Traffic Safety Systems using HLA 1516. Atos Origin Technical Automation; 2008.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ezell BC. Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Model (I-VAM). Risk Analysis. Vol. 27, p.  571–583, 2007.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Möller B, Löfstrand B, Lindqvist J, Backlund A, Waller B, Virding R. Gaming and HLA 1516 Interoperability within the Swedish Defense. 2005 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop. 2005.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Zacharewicz G, Alix T, Vallespir B. Services Modeling and Distributed Simulation DEVS / HLA Supported. Proceedings of the 2009 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC). p. 3023–3035, 2009.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Nan C, Eusgeld I. Adopting HLA standard for interdependency study. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. Vol. 96, p. 149–159, 2010.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Nan C, Kröger W, Probst P. Exploring critical infrastructure interdependnecy by hybrid simulation approach. ESREL 2011. p. 2483–2491, Troyes, France, 2011.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Nan C, Eusgeld I, Kröger W. Analyzing vulnerabilities between SCADA system and SUC due to interdependencies. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. Vol. 113, p. 76–93, 2013.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ETH Risk Center, ETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Land Using Engineering Group, ETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations