Trust Establishment in Cooperating Cyber-Physical Systems

  • Andre Rein
  • Roland Rieke
  • Michael Jäger
  • Nicolai Kuntze
  • Luigi Coppolino
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9588)

Abstract

Cooperating systems are systems of systems that collaborate for a common purpose. Cooperating cyber-physical systems often base important decisions on data gathered from external sensors and use external actuators to enforce safety critical actions. Using the example of a hydroelectric power plant control system, this paper analyzes security threats for networked cooperating systems, where sensors providing decision critical data are placed in non-protected areas and thus are exposed to various kinds of attacks. We propose a concept for trust establishment in cyber-physical cooperating systems. Using trusted event reporting for critical event sources, the authenticity of the security related events can be verified. Based on measurements obtained with a prototypical realisation, we evaluate and analyze the amount of overhead data transmission between event source and data verification system needed for trust establishment. We propose an efficient synchronisation scheme for system integrity data, reducing network traffic as well as verification effort.

Keywords

Trustworthy event management in cyber-physical systems Security of cooperating systems Trusted event reporting Critical infrastructure protection 

References

  1. 1.
    Alcaraz, C., Lopez, J., Zhou, J., Roman, R.: Secure SCADA framework for the protection of energy control systems. Concur. Comput. Pract. Exp. 23(12), 1431–1442 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bodeau, D.J.: System-of-systems security engineering. In: Proceedings of the 10th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, Orlando, Florida, pp. 228–235. IEEE Computer Society (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bohli, J.M., Langendörfer, P., Skarmeta, A.F.: Security and privacy challenge in data aggregation for the IoT in smart cities. In: Internet of Things: Converging Technologies for Smart Environments and Integrated Ecosystems, pp. 225–244. River Publishers (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Choi, J., Shin, I., Seo, J., Lee, C.: An efficient message authentication for non-repudiation of the smart metering service. In: ACIS/JNU International Conference on Computers, Networks, Systems and Industrial Engineering, pp. 331–333 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coppolino, L., D’Antonio, S., Romano, L., Spagnuolo, G.: An intrusion detection system for critical information infrastructures using wireless sensor network technologies. In: 2010 5th International Conference on Critical Infrastructure (CRIS), pp. 1–8 (sept 2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coppolino, L., D’Antonio, S., Romano, L.: Dependability and resilience of computer networks (SCADA cybersecurity). In: Critical Infrastructure Security: Assessment, Prevention, Detection, Response. WIT press (in press)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coppolino, L., Jäger, M., Kuntze, N., Rieke, R.: A trusted information agent for security information and event management. In: ICONS 2012, The Seventh International Conference on Systems, February 29 - March 5, 2012, Reunion Island, pp. 6–12. IARIA (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dan, G., Sandberg, H., Ekstedt, M., Björkman, G.: Challenges in power system information security. IEEE Secur. Priv. 10(4), 62–70 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Derler, P., Lee, E.A., Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A.: Modeling cyber-physical systems. Proc. IEEE (Spec. Issue CPS) 100(1), 13–28 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gao, J., Xiao, Y., Liu, J., Liang, W., Chen, C.L.P.: A survey of communication/networking in smart grids. Future Gener. Comp. Syst. 28(2), 391–404 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gerlach, M.: Trusted network on wheels. ERCIM News, pp. 32–33, October 2005Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gladyshev, P., Patel, A.: Formalising event time bounding in digital investigations. Int. J. Digital Evid. 4, 1–14 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hauser, C.H., Bakken, D.E., Dionysiou, I., Gjermundrød, K.H., Irava, V.S., Helkey, J., Bose, A.: Security, trust, and qos in next-generation control and communication for large power systems. IJCIS 4(1/2), 3–16 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hawley, M., Howard, P., Koelle, R., Saxton, P.: Collaborative security management: Developing ideas in security management for air traffic control. In: Proceedings of 2013 International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, ARES 2013, pp. 808–806. IEEE Computer Society (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    IBM: A strategic approach to protecting scada and process control systems. Technical report, IBM Corporation (2007). http://www.iss.net/documents/whitepapers/SCADA.pdf. Accessed13 May 2015
  16. 16.
    Kuntze, N., Rudolph, C., Cupelli, M., Liu, J., Monti, A.: Trust infrastructures for future energy networks. In: Power and Energy Society General Meeting - Power Systems Engineering in Challenging Times (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kuntze, N., Mähler, D., Schmidt, A.U.: Employing Trusted Computing for the forward pricing of pseudonyms in reputation systems. In: Axmedis 2006, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Automated Production of Cross Media Content for Multi-Channel Distribution, Volume for Workshops, Industrial, and Application Sessions (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kuntze, N., Rudolph, C.: Secure digital chains of evidence. In: Sixth International Workshop on Systematic Approaches to Digital Forensic Engeneering (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    LeMay, M., Gunter, C.A.: Cumulative attestation kernels for embedded systems. In: Backes, M., Ning, P. (eds.) ESORICS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5789, pp. 655–670. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu, J., Yu, F., Lung, C.-H., Tang, H.: Optimal combined intrusion detection and biometric-based continuous authentication in high security mobile Ad Hoc networks. IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. 8(2), 806–815 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mitchell, C.: Trusted Computing. Institution of Electrical Engineers (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Myers, B.K., Dutson, G.C., Sherman, T.: Utilizing automated monitoring for the franzen reservoir dam safety program. In: 25th USSD Annual Meeting and Conference Proceedings (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Neves, N., Kuntze, N., Sarno, C.D., Vianello, V., et al.: Resilient SIEM framework architecture, services and protocols. Deliverable D5.1.4, FP7-257475 MASSIF European project, September 2013Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nicolett, M., Kavanagh, K.M.: Magic Quadrant for Security Information and Event Management. Gartner Reasearch, May 2010Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Oberle, A., Rein, A., Kuntze, N., Rudolph, C., Paatero, J., Lunn, A., Racz, P.: Integrating trust establishment into routing protocols of today’s MANETs. In: Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), 2013 IEEE, pp. 2369–2374. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Parekh, M., Stone, K., Delborne, J.: Coordinating intelligent and continuous performance monitoring with dam and levee safety management policy. In: Association of State Dam Safety Officials, Proceedings of Dam Safety Conference 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pollitt, M.: Report on digital evidence. In: 13th INTERPOL Forensic Science Symposium. Citeseer (2001)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Reith, M., Carr, C., Gunsch, G.: An examination of digital forensic models. Int. J. Digital Evid. 1(3), 1–12 (2002)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Richter, J., Kuntze, N., Rudolph, C.: Security digital evidence. In: 2010 Fifth International Workshop on Systematic Approaches to Digital Forensic Engineering, pp. 119–130. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rieke, R., Coppolino, L., Hutchison, A., Prieto, E., Gaber, C.: Security and reliability requirements for advanced security event management. In: Kotenko, I., Skormin, V. (eds.) MMM-ACNS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7531, pp. 171–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rieke, R., Prieto, E., Diaz, R., Debar, H., Hutchison, A.: Challenges for advanced security monitoring – The MASSIF project. In: Fischer-Hübner, S., Katsikas, S., Quirchmayr, G. (eds.) TrustBus 2012. LNCS, vol. 7449, pp. 222–223. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rieke, R., Repp, J., Zhdanova, M., Eichler, J.: Monitoring security compliance of critical processes. In: 2014 22th Euromicro International Conference on Parallel, Distributed and Network-Based Processing (PDP), pp. 525–560. IEEE Computer Society, February 2014Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rieke, R., Zhdanova, M., Repp, J.: Security compliance tracking of processes in networked cooperating systems. J. Wirel. Mob. Netw. Ubiquit. Comput. Dependable Appl. (JoWUA) 6(2), 21–40 (2015)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Russell, S.J., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 2nd edn. Pearson Education, Paris (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sailer, R., Zhang, X., Jaeger, T., Van Doorn, L.: Design and implementation of a tcg-based integrity measurement architecture. In: USENIX Security Symposium, vol. 13, pp. 223–238 (2004)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stumpf, F., Fuchs, A., Katzenbeisser, S., Eckert, C.: Improving the scalability of platform attestation. In: Proceedings of the Third ACM Workshop on Scalable Trusted Computing (ACM STC 2008), pp. 1–10. ACM Press, Fairfax, 31 October 2008Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Trusted Computing Group TPM Working Group: TCG Specification Architecture Overview. (2007). http://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/resources/
  38. 38.
    Wang, W., Xu, Y., Khanna, M.: A survey on the communication architectures in smart grid. Comput. Netw. 55(15), 3604–3629 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wang, Y.: sscada: Securing SCADA infrastructure communications. CoRR abs/1207.5434 (2012). http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5434
  40. 40.
    Winkler, T., Rinner, B.: TrustCAM: security and privacy-protection for an embedded smart camera based on trusted computing. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Advanced Video and Signal-Based Surveillance (2010)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Xu, X., Bessis, N., Cao, J.: An autonomic agent trust model for iot systems. Procedia Comput. Sci. 21, 107–113 (2013). the 4th International Conference on Emerging Ubiquitous Systems and Pervasive Networks (EUSPN-2013) and the 3rd International Conference on Current and Future Trends of Information and Communication Technologies in Healthcare (ICTH)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zaldivar, J., Calafate, C.T., Cano, J.C., Manzoni, P.: Providing accident detection in vehicular networks through obd-ii devices and android-based smartphones. In: 2011 IEEE 36th Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN), pp. 813–819. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zhu, B., Joseph, A., Sastry, S.: A taxonomy of cyber attacks on scada systems. In: Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Internet of Things and 4th International Conference on Cyber, Physical and Social Computing, ITHINGSCPSCOM 2011, pp. 380–388. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andre Rein
    • 1
  • Roland Rieke
    • 1
    • 2
  • Michael Jäger
    • 3
  • Nicolai Kuntze
    • 1
  • Luigi Coppolino
    • 4
  1. 1.Fraunhofer Institute SITDarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.Philipps-Universität MarburgMarburgGermany
  3. 3.Technische Hochschule MittelhessenGiessenGermany
  4. 4.Universita Degli Studi di Napoli “Parthenope”NapoliItaly

Personalised recommendations