Advertisement

The Unmanned Autonomous Systems Cyberspace Arena (UCA). A M&S Architecture and Relevant Tools for Security Issues Analysis of Autonomous System Networks

  • Marco Biagini
  • Sonia ForconiEmail author
  • Fabio Corona
  • Agatino Mursia
  • Lucio Ganga
  • Ferdinando Battiati
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9991)

Abstract

In the framework of the modern tactical scenarios and the increasing employment of Unmanned Autonomous Systems (UAxS) in multi-battlespace domains (land, naval, air and cyberspace), the threats to the communications and networks available among the units on the battlefield are becoming ever more challenging. It thus becomes crucial to protect communications and networking of these systems from possible hostile actions aimed at jeopardizing mission execution in the Cyberspace. This paper is focused on the required properties and capabilities of a UAxS Cyberspace Arena (UCA), a simulation-based communication and networking environment where it will be possible to evaluate UAxS tactical communication solutions as well as the related countermeasures in case of cyber-attacks and in terms of their resilience and reactivity to the considered security threats.

The UCA is developed as an emerging concept to support UAxS Concept Development and Experimentation phases and its overarching architecture and related M&S tools are described, focusing on a Networks and Communications Simulator (Cyber Arena), within a Modelling and Simulation as a Services approach. In conclusion, the UCA architecture aims to demonstrate how it will be possible, in such an environment, to evaluate UAxS Security issues and challenges related to tactical communication and networking solutions in case of cyber-attacks, both in term of their resilience and reactivity to the considered security threats.

Keywords

Unmanned autonomous systems Cyberspace CSSE Cyber defence 

References

  1. 1.
    NATO ACT CEI CAPDEV: Autonomous Systems Countermeasures (2016). http://innovationhub-act.org/AxSCountermeasures. Accessed May 2016
  2. 2.
    NATO STO SAS 082: Disruptive Technology Assessment Game - Evaluation and Validation (2012). http://www.cso.nato.int/activities.aspx?pg=2&RestrictPanel=6&FMMod=0&OrderBy=0&OrderWay=2. Accessed May 2016
  3. 3.
    NATO STO SAS 086: Maritime Situational Awareness: Concept Development Assessment Game (CDAG) (2010). http://www.cso.nato.int/activities.aspx?pg=3&RestrictPanel=6&FMMod=0&OrderBy=0&OrderWay=2. Accessed May 2016
  4. 4.
    SSI Finmeccanica Company: SIRI Operational Scenario, Taranto (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    NIEM: National Information Exchange Model (2016). https://www.niem.gov/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed May 2016
  6. 6.
    ROS: Robotic Operating System (ROS) Documentation (2016). http://wiki.ros.org/. Accessed May 2016
  7. 7.
    Litwiller, S., Weber, M., Klucznik, F.: Improving robotic and autonomous system information interoperability: standardizing data exchange with XML. In: Hodicky, J. (ed.) MESAS 2014. LNCS, vol. 9055, pp. 24–39. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Byrum, F., Sidoran, J.: IST 136 Roadmap - Security Challenges for Multi-Domain Autonomous and Unmanned C4ISR Systems (Draft - unpublished). STO CSO (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    NATO STO NMSG 145: Operationalization of Standardized C2-Simulation Interoperability. STO CSO – STO activities (2016). http://www.cso.nato.int/activities.aspx?RestrictPanel=5. Accessed May 2016
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    NATO Standardization Agency: Allied Joint Doctrine – AJP 1.0. NATO document, Brussels (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Siegfried, R., Van den Berg, T., Cramp, A., Huiskamp, W.: M&S as a service: expectations and challenges. In: Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Orlando, FL (USA), pp. 248–257 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    NATO STO MSG 136: Modelling and Simulation as a Service. STO CSO – STO Activities (2016). http://www.cso.nato.int/activities.aspx?RestrictPanel=5. Accessed May 2016
  14. 14.
    Hodicky, J., Frantis, P.: Decision support system for a commander at the operational level. In: Dietz, J.L.G. (ed.) KEOD 2009 – Proceedings of International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development, Funchal – Madeira, October 2009, pp. 359–362. INSTICC Press (2009). ISBN 978-989-674-012-2Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hodicky, J., Frantis, P.: Using simulation for prediction of units movements in case of communication failure. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. Int. J. Electr. Comput. Energ. Electr. Commun. Eng. 5(7), 796–798 (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hodicky, J.: HLA as an Experimental Backbone for Autonomous System Integration into Operational Field. In: Hodicky, J. (ed.) MESAS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8906, pp. 121–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Biagini
    • 1
  • Sonia Forconi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Fabio Corona
    • 1
  • Agatino Mursia
    • 2
  • Lucio Ganga
    • 2
  • Ferdinando Battiati
    • 3
  1. 1.NATO Modelling & Simulation Centre of ExcellenceRomeItaly
  2. 2.LEONARDO FinmeccanicaRomeItaly
  3. 3.Scuola delle Trasmissioni e InformaticaRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations