Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Critical network infrastructure analysis: interdiction and system flow

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Geographical Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Effective management of critical network infrastructure requires the assessment of potential interdiction scenarios. Optimization approaches have been essential for identifying and evaluating such scenarios in networked systems. Although a primary function of any network is the distribution of flow between origins and destinations, the complexity and difficulty of mathematically abstracting interdiction impacts on connectivity or flow has been a challenge for researchers. This paper presents an optimization approach for identifying interdiction bounds with respect to connectivity and/or flow associated with a system of origins and destinations. Application results for telecommunications flow are presented, illustrating the capabilities of this approach.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In the fiscal year 2006, $873 million USD were allocated to the Department of Homeland Security’s Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate (DHS 2004, 2005), which coordinates the Federal Government’s efforts to protect the Nation’s critical infrastructure, including commercial assets (e.g., stock exchanges), government facilities, dams, nuclear power plants, national monuments and icons, chemical plants, bridges, and tunnels. In addition, $94 million USD is allocated to protecting against threats to information technology infrastructure (OMB 2006).

References

  • Abilene (2005) http://www.abilene.internet2.edu/

  • Albert R, Jeong H, Barabasi AL (2000) Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature 406:378–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albert R, Albert I, Nakarado GL (2004) Structural vulnerability of the North American power grid. Phys Rev E 69:025103(R)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball MO, Golden BL, Vohra RV (1989) Finding the most vital arcs in a network. Oper Res Lett 8:73–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barabasi AL, Albert R, Jeong H (2000) Scale-free characteristics of random networks: the topology of the worldwide web. Physica A 281:69–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barabasi AL, Ravasz E, Vicsek T (2001) Deterministic scale-free networks. Physica A 299:559–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baran P (1964) On distributed communications networks. IEEE Trans Commun Syst 12:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell MGH (2000) A game theory approach to measuring the performance reliability of transport networks. Transport Res B 34:533–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlier J, Li Y, Lutton J (1997) Reliability evaluation of large telecommunication networks. Discret Appl Math 76:61–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carreras BA, Lynch VE, Dobson I, Newman DE (2002) Critical points and transitions in an electric power transmission model for cascading failure blackouts. Chaos 12:985–994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chassin DP, Posse C (2005) Evaluating North American electric grid reliability using the Barabasi-Albert Network Model. Physica A 355:667–677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Church RL, Scaparra MP, Middleton RS (2004) Identifying critical infrastructure: the median and covering facility interdiction problems. Ann Assoc Am Geograph 94:491–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corley HW, Chang H (1974) Finding the n most vital nodes in a flow network. Manage Sci 21:362–364

    Google Scholar 

  • Corley HW, Sha DY (1982) Most vital links and nodes in weighted networks. Oper Res Lett 1:157–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crucitti P, Latora V, Marchiori M (2004) Model for cascading failures in complex networks. Phys Rev E 69:045104(R)

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (2004) Sharing information to protect the economy. URL: http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0566.xml

  • Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (2005) Sharing information to protect the economy. URL: http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme = 73&content = 1375

  • Doyle JC, Alderson DL, Li L, Low S, Roughan M, Shalunov S, Tanaka R, Willinger W (2005) The ‘robust yet fragile’ nature of the Internet. Proc Natl Acad Sci 102:14497–14502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Executive Order 1995—Critical Infrastructure Protection. Federal Register, July 17, 1996. vol 61, no. 138. pp 37347–37350. Reference is on p 37347

  • Grubesic TH, Murray AT (2006) Vital nodes, interconnected infrastructures and the geographies of network reliability. Ann Assoc Am Geograph 96:64–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grubesic TH, O’Kelly ME, Murray AT (2003) A geographic perspective on commercial Internet survivability. Telemat Inform 20:51–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grubesic TH, Murray AT, Mefford J (2006) Continuity in critical network infrastructures: accounting for nodal disruptions. In: Murray A, Grubesic T (eds) Reliability and vulnerability in critical infrastructure: a quantitative geographic perspective. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson MJ, Rosing KE, Zhang J (1996) Locating vehicle inspection stations to protect a transportation network. Geograph Anal 28:299–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holme P, Kim BJ, Yoon CN, Han SK (2002) Attack vulnerability of complex networks. Phys Rev E 65:056109

    Google Scholar 

  • Houck DJ, Kim E, O’Reilly GP, Picklesimer DD, Uzunalioglu H (2004) A network survivability model for critical national infrastructures. Bell Labs Tech J 8:153–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalvenes J, Kennington J, Olinick E (2004) Hierarchical cellular network design with channel allocation. Eur J OperRes 160:3–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latora V, Marchiori M (2005) Vulnerability and protection of infrastructure networks. Phys Rev E 71:015103(R)

    Google Scholar 

  • Matisziw TC, Murray AT, Grubesic TH (2005). Assessing network interdiction and potential risk to O–D interaction (submitted for publication)

  • Myung Y-S, Kim H-J (2004) A cutting plane algorithm for computing k-edge survivability of a network. Eur J Oper Res 156:579–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nardellia E, Proiettia G, Widmayer P (2003) Finding the most vital node of a shortest path. Theor Comput Sci 296:167–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (2006). Homeland security. URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/pdf/Homeland-06.pdf

  • Palmer CR, Siganos G, Faloutsos M, Faloutsos C, Gibbons PB (2001) The connectivity and fault-tolerance of the Internet topology. URL: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/444798.html

  • Ratliff HD, Sicilia GT, Lubore SH (1975) Finding the n most vital links in flow networks. Manage Sci 2:531–539

    Google Scholar 

  • ReVelle CS, Rosing KE (2000) Defendens imperium Romanum: a classical problem in military strategy. Am Math Mon 107(7):585–594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmeron J, Wood K, Baldick R (2004) Analysis of electric grid security under terrorist threat. IEEE Trans Pow Syst 19:905–912

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soni S, Pirkul H (2000) Design of survivable networks with connectivity requirements. Telecommun Syst 20:133–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White House (2003) The national strategy for the physical protection of critical infrastructures and key assets. URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/physical_strategy.pdf

  • Wollmer R (1964) Removing arcs from a network. Oper Res 12:934–940

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood KR (1993) Deterministic network interdiction. Math Comput Modell 17:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Urban and Regional Analysis, and Department of Geography, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

    Alan T. Murray

  2. Center for Urban and Regional Analysis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

    Timothy C. Matisziw

  3. Department of Geography, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 47403, USA

    Tony H. Grubesic

Authors
  1. Alan T. Murray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Timothy C. Matisziw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tony H. Grubesic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alan T. Murray.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Murray, A.T., Matisziw, T.C. & Grubesic, T.H. Critical network infrastructure analysis: interdiction and system flow. J Geograph Syst 9, 103–117 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10109-006-0039-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10109-006-0039-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation