Transportation

  • Mark Hartong
  • Rajn Goel
  • Duminda Wijesekera
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7130)

Abstract

Transportation systems are an often overlooked critical infrastructure component. These systems comprise a widely diverse elements whose operation impact all aspects of society today. This chapter introduces the key transportation sectors and illustrates the impacts that can result if their operation is disrupted. Two elements that are common to systems used in all sectors, and that are vulnerable to cyber attack, are discussed. Positive Train Control (PTC), used in the rail sector to prevent or mitigate the consequences of accidents and that makes extensive use of these elements, is discussed in detail as representative of the security issues.

Keywords

Global Position System Differential Global Position System Global Position System Position Freight Train Collision Avoidance System 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics 2007, U. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC (May 2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Presidents Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection, Critical Foundations: Protecting Americas Infrastructure,U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC (October 2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    International Airline Transportation Association (IATA) Economics Department. World Air Transport Statistics 52nd Edition, IATA Montreal, Canada (May 2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    U.S. Census Bureau. The 2009 Statistical Abstract, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (May 2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cooper, A.: Aviation: The Real World Wide Web. Oxford Economics, Oxford, UK (June 2009) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    AFR60-24, AR 95-21, OPNAVINST 3772.30C, Security Control of Air Traffic and Air Navigation Aids (SCATANA), U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, DC, June 25 (1976)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Makinen, G., et al.: The Economic Effects of 9/11: A Retrospective Assessment. Congressional Research Service, U.S. Library of Congress (September 2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Public Law 111-5 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (February 2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Policy and Economics Department, Association of American Railroads. Railroad Facts, 2008 Edition, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC (November 2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. National Transportation Statistics, http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_*transportation_*statistics/ (accessed August 17, 2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    American Passenger Transportation Association (APTA) 2009 Public Transportation Fact Book, APTA, Washington, DC (April 2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    European Rail Research Advisory (ERAC) Council, Suburban and Regional Railways Landscape in Europe, ERRAC (October 2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies (CER), Towards a Sustainable Rail Network,-Annual Report 2008, CER, Belgium, My (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weinstein, B., Clower, T.: The Impact of the Union Pacific Service Disruptions on the Texas and National Economies: An Unfinished Story Railroad Commission of Texas (February 1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Riley, J.: Terrorism and Rail Security, Testimony Presented to the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, The Rand Corporation, March 23 (2004), http://www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/CT224/index.html (accessed August 17, 2009)
  16. 16.
    National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), Rail Realignment Feasibility Study Securing Freight Transportation in the National Capital Region, NCPC, Washington DC (April 2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pulak, C.: The Uluburun Shipwreck: An Overview. IJNA 27(3), 188 (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTF), Review of Maritime Transport 2008, Report by the UNCTAD Secretariat United Nations, New York and Geneva (January 2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rosenberg, D.: The Political Economy of Piracy in the South China Sea, Naval War College Review Summer 2009, U.S. Naval War College (August 2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Asia Piracy Costs $25 Bin a Year, Says Expert, Reuters News Agency, Singapore (December 11, 2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Price of Increased Maritime Security Is Much Lower than Potential Cost of a Major Terror Attack Paris: Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, July 21 (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Murphy, M.N.: Contemporary Piracy and Maritime Terrorism: The Threat to International Security, International Institute for Strategic Studies, London (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rubin, J., Tal, B.: Will Soaring Transport Costs Reverse Globalization?, CIBC World Markets Inc., StrategEcon (May 27, 2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Assessment Of Highway Mode Security: Corporate Security Review Results, Highway and Motor Carrier Division TSA Transportation Sector Network Management Office, Washington, D.C. (May 2006)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Comparing the Impacts of the 2005 and 2008 Hurricanes on U.S. Energy Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, U.S. Department of Energy Washington, DC (February 2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Luft, G.: Pipeline Sabotage is Terrorists Weapon of Choice, Institute for Analysis of Global Security (IAGS) Energy Security, 25/III/2005Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    CRS Report for Congress, Pipeline Security: An Overview of Federal Activities and Current Policy Issues, Congressional Research Service Library of Congress (February 5, 2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Levinson, M.: The Box. How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger. Princeton University Press, New Jersey (2006)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    European Union (EU), the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) and the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN/ECE), Terminology on Combined Transport, United Nations, New York and Geneva (2001)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    North American Container Port Traffic- 2008, American Association of Port Authoriites, http://www.aapa-ports.org/ (accessed August 17, 2009)
  31. 31.
    Gooley, T., Cooke, J.A.: Shippers, Carriers Struggle with Port Shutdown’s Aftermath. Logistics Management 41(11), 15–16 (2002)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Keane, A.: Insecurity over Ports, Traffic, World, 5, UBM Global Trade Publisher, East Windsor, NJ, USA (April 2004)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Table of Frequency Allocations Federal Communications System (FCC) Rules and Regulations, 47 C.F.R. 2.106, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (February 2009)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    U.S. Air Force Fact Sheet, Global Positioning System, Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angles Air Force Base, El Segundo, CA (January 2009)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Commission to Address United States Security Space Management Organization, Report to the House & Senate Committee on Armed Services to Address United States Security Space Management Organization Washington, DC (January 2001)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dehel, T., et al.: National Satellite Test Bed (NSTB) Observations on the Effects of Ionospheric Storms on a Prototype Wide Area Augmentation System. In: Proceedings of the 1999 Technical Meeting of the Institute of navigation & 19th Biennial Guidance Test Symposium San Diego, CA USA, January 25-27 (1999)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vulnerability Assessment of the Transportation Infrastructure Relying on the Global position System,- Final Report, John A Volpe Transportation System Center, Boston, MA (August 2001)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    PL110-432, Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (February 2009)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    United States National Transportation Safety Board, Collision of Union Pacific Railroad train MHOTU-25 with BNSF Railway Company Train MEAP-TUL-126-D with Subsequent Derailment and Hazardous Materials Release, Macdona TX, June 28, 2004, NTSB /RAR-06/03 (July 2006)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    United States National Transportation Safety Board, Report of Railroad Accident: Collision of Norfolk Southern Freight Train 192 with Standing Norfolk Southern Local Train P22 With Subsequent Hazardous Materials Release. Graniteville, South Carolina, NTSB/RAR-05/04, January 6 (2005)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    United States National Transportation Safety Board, Collision of Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) Passenger Train No. 111 and Union Pacific Railroad Freight Train No. LOF65-12 Chatsworth, California September 12, 2008 DCA08MR009 Public Hearing, Washington, D.C, March 3-4 (2009)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Docket FRA-2003-15432, Burlington Northern Waiver Petition, U.S. Department of Transportation Document Management System, http://regulations.gov/ (accessed August 17, 2009)
  43. 43.
    Lederer, R.: Electronic Train Management System. BNSF Railways Presentation at National Transportation Safety Board 2005 Symposium on Positive Train Control, Ashburn, VA (2005), http://www.ntsb.gov/events/sympptc/presentations/14Lederer.pdf (accessed August 17, 2009)
  44. 44.
    Haag, R.: Electronic Train Management Systems WABTEC Railway Electronics Presentation at National Transportation Safety Board, Symposium on Positive Train Control, Ashburn, VA (2005), http://www.ntsb.gov/events/sympptc/presentations/16Haag.pdf (accessed August 17, 2009)
  45. 45.
    Docket FRA 2002-11533,Waiver for Petition of Compliance, U.S. Department of Transportation Document Management System, //regulations.gov/ (accessed August 17, 2009)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kollmar, R.: Michigan Positive Train Control Project Incremental Train Control System. National Passenger Rail Corporation (AMTRAK) Presentation at National Transportation Safety Board 2005 Symposium on Positive Train Control, Ashburn, VA, http://www.ntsb.gov/events/sympptc/presentations/07Kollmar.pdf (accessed August 17, 2009)
  47. 47.
    Baker, J.: ITCS Incremental Train Control System. In: GE Global Signaling Presentation at National Transportation Safety Board 2005 Symposium on Positive Train Control, Ashburn, VA (2005), http://www.ntsb.gov/events/sympptc/presentations/11Baker.pdf (accessed August 17, 2009)
  48. 48.
    Cyber Security of Freight Information Systems, Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC (2003)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Chittester, C., Haines, Y.: Risks of Terrorism to Information Technology and to Critical Interdependent Infrastructure. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 1(4) (2004)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Carlson, A., Frincke, D., Laude, M.: Railway Security Issues: A Survey of Developing Railway Technology. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer, Communications, & Control Technology, International Institute of Informatics and Systemics (2003)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Craven, P.: A Brief Look at Railroad Communication Vulnerabilities. In: Proceedings 2004 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference, Washington, D.C (2004)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    The Presidents National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee Wireless Task Force Report Wireless Security U.S. Government Printing Office (January 2003)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    United States General Accounting Office, GAO Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Technology Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census, House Committee on Government Reform, Critical Infrastructure Protection Challenges and Efforts to Secure Control Systems, Tuesday (March 30, 2004)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Diversification Of Cyber Threats, Institute For Security Technology Studies At Dartmouth College, Investigative Research For Infrastructure Assurance Group (May 2002)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Information Assurance Technical Framework (IATF), Release 3.1, Information Assurance Solutions, U.S. National Security Agency Fort Meade, MD (September 2002)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Common Cyber Security Vulnerabilities Observed in DHS Industrial Control Systems Assessments, U.S. Department of Homeland Security National Cyber Security Divisions Control Systems Security Program (CSSP) (July 2009)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-347), U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (December 2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Hartong
    • 1
  • Rajn Goel
    • 2
  • Duminda Wijesekera
    • 3
  1. 1.U.S. Department of TransportationFederal Railroad AdministrationWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Information Systems and Decision SciencesHoward UniversityWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations