1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems
  4. Volume 5, 2022
  5. Article

Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems

Volume 5, 2022

Secure Networked Control Systems

Abstract

Cyber-vulnerabilities are being exploited in a growing number of control systems. As many of these systems form the backbone of critical infrastructure and are becoming more automated and interconnected, it is of the utmost importance to develop methods that allow system designers and operators to do risk analysis and develop mitigation strategies. Over the last decade, great advances have been made in the control systems community to better understand cyber-threats and their potential impact. This article provides an overview of recent literature on secure networked control systems. Motivated by recent cyberattacks on the power grid, connected road vehicles, and process industries, a system model is introduced that covers many of the existing research studies on control system vulnerabilities. An attack space is introduced that illustrates how adversarial resources are allocated in some common attacks. The main part of the article describes three types of attacks: false data injection, replay, and denial-of-service attacks. Representative models and mathematical formulations of these attacks are given along with some proposed mitigation strategies. The focus is on linear discrete-time plant models, but various extensions are presented in the final section, which also mentions some interesting research problems for future work.

Keyword(s): attack space, cyber-physical security, denial-of-service attack, false data injection attack, networked control systems, replay attack
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-control-072921-075953
2022-05-03
2024-05-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/control/5/1/annurev-control-072921-075953.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-control-072921-075953&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1. 
    Garber L. 2000. Denial-of-service attacks rip the Internet. Computer 33:412–17
     [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. 
    Pelechrinis K, Iliofotou M, Krishnamurthy SV. 2010. Denial of service attacks in wireless networks: the case of jammers. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 13:245–57
     [Google Scholar]
  3. 3. 
    Gao Z, Cecati C, Ding SX. 2015. A survey of fault diagnosis and fault-tolerant techniques—part I: fault diagnosis with model-based and signal-based approaches. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 62:3757–67
     [Google Scholar]
  4. 4. 
    Kushner D. 2013. The real story of Stuxnet. IEEE Spectr 50:348–53
     [Google Scholar]
  5. 5. 
    Zetter K. 2016. Inside the cunning, unprecedented hack of Ukraine's power grid. Wired Mar. 3. https://www.wired.com/2016/03/inside-cunning-unprecedented-hack-ukraines-power-grid
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6. 
    Anderson R. 2020. Security Engineering: A Guide to Building Dependable Distributed Systems Indianapolis, IN: Wiley, 3rd ed..
  7. 7. 
    Katz J, Lindell Y. 2007. Introduction to Modern Cryptography Boca Raton, FL: CRC
  8. 8. 
    Mokube I, Adams M 2007. Honeypots: concepts, approaches, and challenges. Proceedings of the 45th Annual Southeast Regional Conference321–26 New York: ACM
  9. 9. 
    Petitcolas FAP 2011. Encyclopedia of Cryptography and Security Boston: Springer
  10. 10. 
    Cybersecur. Infrastruct. Secur. Agency 2016. ICS alert (IR-ALERT-H-16-056-01): cyber-attack against Ukrainian critical infrastructure. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Feb. 25. https://us-cert.cisa.gov/ics/alerts/IR-ALERT-H-16-056-01
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11. 
    Liu Y, Reiter MK, Ning P. 2009. False data injection attacks against state estimation in electric power grids. Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security21–32 New York: ACM
  12. 12. 
    Teixeira A, Amin S, Sandberg H, Johansson KH, Sastry SS. 2010. Cyber-security analysis of state estimators in electric power systems. 49th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control5991–98 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
  13. 13. 
    Liu S, Liu XP, El Saddik A. 2013. Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks on load frequency control in smart grids. 2013 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference Piscataway, NJ: IEEE https://doi.org/10.1109/ISGT.2013.6497846
    [Crossref]
  14. 14. 
    Miller C, Valasek C. 2015. Remote exploitation of an unaltered passenger vehicle Paper presented at Black Hat USA Las Vegas, NV: Aug. 1–6. Extended report available at http://illmatics.com/Remote%20Car%20Hacking.pdf
  15. 15. 
    Greenberg A. 2015. Hackers remotely kill a Jeep on the highway—with me in it. Wired July 21. https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16. 
    Besselink B, Turri V, van de Hoef S, Liang KY, Alam A et al. 2016. Cyber-physical control of road freight transport. Proc. IEEE 104:1128–41
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 17. 
    Ahlen A, Akerberg J, Eriksson M, Isaksson AJ, Iwaki T et al. 2019. Toward wireless control in industrial process automation: a case study at a paper mill. IEEE Control Syst. Mag. 39:536–57
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 18. 
    Ding SX. 2008. Model-Based Fault Diagnosis Techniques: Design Schemes, Algorithms, and Tools London: Springer, 1st ed..
  19. 19. 
    Basseville M, Nikiforov IV. 1993. Detection of Abrupt Changes: Theory and Application Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
  20. 20. 
    Willsky A, Jones H. 1976. A generalized likelihood ratio approach to the detection and estimation of jumps in linear systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 21:108–12
     [Google Scholar]
  21. 21. 
    Lai TL. 1998. Information bounds and quick detection of parameter changes in stochastic systems. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 44:2917–29
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 22. 
    Giraldo J, Urbina D, Cardenas A, Valente J, Faisal M et al. 2018. A survey of physics-based attack detection in cyber-physical systems. ACM Comput. Surv. 51:76
     [Google Scholar]
  23. 23. 
    Mo Y, Chabukswar R, Sinopoli B 2014. Detecting integrity attacks on SCADA systems. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 22:1396–407
     [Google Scholar]
  24. 24. 
    Miloević J, Teixeira A, Tanaka T, Johansson KH, Sandberg H. 2020. Security measure allocation for industrial control systems: exploiting systematic search techniques and submodularity. Int. J. Robust Nonlinear Control 30:4278–302
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 25. 
    Pasqualetti F, Dörfler F, Bullo F. 2013. Attack detection and identification in cyber-physical systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 58:2715–29
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 26. 
    Weerakkody S, Liu X, Son SH, Sinopoli B 2017. A graph-theoretic characterization of perfect attackability for secure design of distributed control systems. IEEE Trans. Control Netw. Syst. 4:60–70
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 27. 
    Teixeira A, Shames I, Sandberg H, Johansson KH. 2015. A secure control framework for resource-limited adversaries. Automatica 51:135–48
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 28. 
    Bai CZ, Gupta V, Pasqualetti F. 2017. On Kalman filtering with compromised sensors: attack stealthiness and performance bounds. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 62:6641–48
     [Google Scholar]
  29. 29. 
    Bai CZ, Pasqualetti F, Gupta V 2017. Data-injection attacks in stochastic control systems: detectability and performance tradeoffs. Automatica 82:251–60
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 30. 
    Kung E, Dey S, Shi L 2017. The performance and limitations of -stealthy attacks on higher order systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 62:941–47
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 31. 
    Umsonst D, Sandberg H. 2018. A game-theoretic approach for choosing a detector tuning under stealthy sensor data attacks. 2018 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control5975–81 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
  32. 32. 
    Chong MS, Wakaiki M, Hespanha JP. 2015. Observability of linear systems under adversarial attacks. 2015 American Control Conference2439–44 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
  33. 33. 
    Fawzi H, Tabuada P, Diggavi S. 2014. Secure estimation and control for cyber-physical systems under adversarial attacks. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 59:1454–67
     [Google Scholar]
  34. 34. 
    Al Makdah AA, Katewa V, Pasqualetti F 2020. A fundamental performance limitation for adversarial classification. IEEE Control Syst. Lett. 4:169–74
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 35. 
    Li D, Martínez S. 2021. High-confidence attack detection via Wasserstein-Metric computations. IEEE Control Syst. Lett. 5:379–84
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 36. 
    Weerakkody S, Sinopoli B. 2015. Detecting integrity attacks on control systems using a moving target approach. 2015 54th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control5820–26 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
  37. 37. 
    Teixeira A, Ferrari RM. 2018. Detection of sensor data injection attacks with multiplicative watermarking. 2018 European Control Conference338–43 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
  38. 38. 
    Mo Y, Sinopoli B. 2009. Secure control against replay attacks. Proceedings of the 47th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing911–18 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
  39. 39. 
    Mo Y, Weerakkody S, Sinopoli B 2015. Physical authentication of control systems: designing watermarked control inputs to detect counterfeit sensor outputs. IEEE Control Syst. Mag. 35:193–109
     [Google Scholar]
  40. 40. 
    Satchidanandan B, Kumar PR. 2017. Dynamic watermarking: active defense of networked cyber–physical systems. Proc. IEEE 105:219–40
     [Google Scholar]
  41. 41. 
    Ferrari R, Teixeira A. 2017. Detection and isolation of replay attacks through sensor watermarking. IFAC-PapersOnLine 50:17363–68
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 42. 
    Cetinkaya A, Ishii H, Hayakawa T. 2019. An overview on denial-of-service attacks in control systems: attack models and security analyses. Entropy 21:210
     [Google Scholar]
  43. 43. 
    Sontag ED 2008. Input to state stability: basic concepts and results. Nonlinear and Optimal Control Theory P Nistri, G Stefani 163–220 Berlin: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 44. 
    De Persis C, Tesi P. 2015. Input-to-state stabilizing control under denial-of-service. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 60:2930–44
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 45. 
    De Persis C, Tesi P. 2016. Networked control of nonlinear systems under denial-of-service. Syst. Control Lett. 96:124–31
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 46. 
    Amin S, Cárdenas AA, Sastry SS 2009. Safe and secure networked control systems under denial-of-service attacks. Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control R Majumdar, P Tabuada 31–45 Berlin: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 47. 
    Zhang H, Cheng P, Shi L, Chen J. 2016. Optimal DoS attack scheduling in wireless networked control system. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 24:843–52
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 48. 
    Li Y, Quevedo DE, Dey S, Shi L 2017. SINR-based DoS attack on remote state estimation: a game-theoretic approach. IEEE Trans. Control Netw. Syst. 4:632–42
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 49. 
    Befekadu GK, Gupta V, Antsaklis PJ. 2015. Risk-sensitive control under Markov modulated Denial-of-Service (DoS) attack strategies. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 60:3299–304
     [Google Scholar]
  50. 50. 
    Vukovic O, Sou KC, Dan G, Sandberg H 2012. Network-aware mitigation of data integrity attacks on power system state estimation. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 30:1108–18
     [Google Scholar]
  51. 51. 
    Sarıtaş S, Shereen E, Sandberg H, Dán G 2019. Adversarial attacks on continuous authentication security: a dynamic game approach. Decision and Game Theory for Security T Alpcan, Y Vorobeychik, JS Baras, G Dán 439–58 Cham, Switz: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  52. 52. 
    Trejo KK, Clempner JB, Poznyak AS. 2016. Adapting strategies to dynamic environments in controllable stackelberg security games. 2016 IEEE 55th Conference on Decision and Control5484–89 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
  53. 53. 
    Liu H, Mo Y, Yan J, Xie L, Johansson KH 2020. An online approach to physical watermark design. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 65:3895–902
     [Google Scholar]
  54. 54. 
    Dua S, Du X. 2016. Data Mining and Machine Learning in Cybersecurity Boca Raton, FL: CRC
  55. 55. 
    Xin Y, Kong L, Liu Z, Chen Y, Li Y et al. 2018. Machine learning and deep learning methods for cybersecurity. IEEE Access 6:35365–81
     [Google Scholar]
  56. 56. 
    Shi D, Guo Z, Johansson KH, Shi L. 2018. Causality countermeasures for anomaly detection in cyber-physical systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 63:386–401
     [Google Scholar]
  57. 57. 
    Sundaram S, Hadjicostis CN. 2011. Distributed function calculation via linear iterative strategies in the presence of malicious agents. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 56:1495–508
     [Google Scholar]
  58. 58. 
    Senejohnny D, Tesi P, De Persis C. 2018. A jamming-resilient algorithm for self-triggered network coordination. IEEE Trans. Control Netw. Syst. 5:981–90
     [Google Scholar]
  59. 59. 
    Sandberg H 2021. Cyber-physical security. Encyclopedia of Systems and Control J Baillieul, T Samad 480–87 Cham, Switz: Springer, 2nd ed..
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-control-072921-075953
Loading
Secure Networked Control Systems
Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems 5, 445 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-control-072921-075953
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-control-072921-075953
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-control-072921-075953
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error