Increased connectivity renders the ships more cost-effective but also vulnerable to cyberattacks. Since ships are assets of significant value and importance, they constitute a lucrative object for cyber-attacks. The power and propulsion functions are among the most safety critical and essential for ship operations. Simultaneously, the use of Dual-Fuel (DF) engines for power generation and propulsion has become very popular in the recent years. The aim of this research is the risk identification and analysis of potential cybersecurity attack scenarios in a DF engine on inland waterways ship. For this purpose, we employ an adapted version of Failure Modes, Vulnerabilities and Effects Analysis (FMVEA). In our approach we demonstrate how the implementation of FMVEA can be interconnected with the existing assurance processes for maritime engines and novel developments in the field of risk theory. We also provide insights in the riskiest cybersecurity attacks on DF engine and how to reduce their risks.
PapanikolaouA. Ship design: methodologies of preliminary design. Dodrecht: Springer, 2014.
2.
AbaeiMMHekkenbergRBahooToroodyA.A multinomial process tree for reliability assessment of machinery in autonomous ships. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2021; 210: 107484.
3.
DengJWangXWeiZ, et al. A review of NOx and SOx emission reduction technologies for marine diesel engines and the potential evaluation of liquefied natural gas fuelled vessels. Sci Total Environ2021; 766: 144319.
4.
JoungT-HKangS-GLeeJ-K, et al. The IMO initial strategy for reducing greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions, and its follow-up actions towards 2050. J Int Marit Saf Environ Aff Shipp2020; 4: 1–7.
5.
ABS. Ship energy efficiency measures - status and guidance. ABS, 2013.
6.
Wärtsilä. WÄRTSILÄ 50DF engine technology. 2009.
7.
MAN. ME-GI dual fuel MAN B&W engines. MAN B&W Engines, 2014.
8.
YangRTheotokatosGVassalosD.Parametric investigation of a large two-stroke marine high-pressure direct injection engine by using computational fluid dynamics method. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment2020; 234: 699–711.
9.
DurmazMErginS.A numerical study on the performance and emission characteristics of dual-fuel LNG diesel engine. In: TEAM 2019. Tainan, Taiwan2019.
10.
BolbotVTrivyzaNLTheotokatosG, et al. Cruise ships power plant optimisation and comparative analysis. Energy2020; 196: 117061.
11.
XiangLTheotokatosGDingY.Parametric investigation on the performance-emissions trade-off and knocking occurrence of dual fuel engines using CFD. Fuel2023; 340: 127535.
12.
PalménMLotričALaaksoA, et al. Selecting appropriate energy source options for an arctic research ship. J Mar Sci Eng2023; 11: 2337.
13.
JoSWShimWS.LTE-maritime: high-speed maritime wireless communication based on LTE technology. IEEE Access2019; 7: 53172–53181.
14.
KatsikasSDimasDDefigosA, et al. Wireless modular system for vessel engines monitoring, condition based maintenance and vessel’s performance analysis. PHM Society European Conference2014; 2(1).
15.
TrivyzaNLRentizelasATheotokatosG.A novel multi-objective decision support method for ship energy systems synthesis to enhance sustainability. Energy Convers Manag2018; 168: 128–149.
16.
TsitsilonisK-MTheotokatosG.A novel method for in-cylinder pressure prediction using the engine instantaneous crankshaft torque. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment2022; 236: 131–149.
17.
BolbotVKulkarniKBrunouP, et al. Developments and research directions in maritime cybersecurity: A systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. Int J Crit Infrastruct Prot2022; 39.
18.
MelandPHBernsmedKWilleE, et al. A retrospective analysis of maritime cyber security incidents. TransNav Int J Mar Navig Saf Sea Transp2021; 15: 519–530.
19.
OrhanMCelikM.A literature review and future research agenda on fault detection and diagnosis studies in marine machinery systems. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment2024; 238: 21.
BrewLDrazovichLWetzelS. The impact of COVID-19 on the security and resilience of the maritime transportation system. In: 2021 IEEE International Conference on Cyber Security and Resilience (CSR)2021, pp.510–517. Rhodes, Greece: IEEE.
24.
BicenSCelikM.A bibliometric review on maritime inspection analysis: Current and future insights. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment2023; 237: 275–292.
BolbotVMethlouthiOBandaO, et al. Identification of cyber-attack scenarios in a marine dual-fuel engine. In: SoaresCGSantosTA (eds.) Trends in Maritime Technology and EngineeringLisbon, Portugal: Taylor & Francis, 2022, pp.503–510, Vol. 1.
27.
StoumposSBolbotVTheotokatosG, et al. Safety performance assessment of a marine dual fuel engine by integrating failure mode, effects and criticality analysis with simulation tools. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment2022; 236: 376–393.
28.
DuganSAUtneIB.Statistical analysis of vessel loss of command frequency. Marit Transp Res2024; 6.
LambaASinghSBalvinderS, et al. To classify cyber-security threats in automotive doming using different assessment methodologies. Int J Technol Res Eng2015; 3(3): ssrn.3492674.
33.
Anthony (Tony)CoxL. What’s wrong with risk matrices?Risk Anal2008; 28: 497–512.
34.
DuijmNJ.Recommendations on the use and design of risk matrices. Saf Sci2015; 76: 21–31.
35.
LevineES.Improving risk matrices: the advantages of logarithmically scaled axes. J Risk Res2012; 15: 209–222.
36.
iTrust. Cyber risk management in shipboard operational technology systems. Singapore: Centre for Research in Cyber Security, 2022.
IACS. Recommendation for the FMEA process for diesel engine control systems. In Machinery (ed.). International Association of Classification Societies (IACS). London: IACS, 2014.
45.
AhmedSGuX-C.Accident-based FMECA study of Marine boiler for risk prioritization using Fuzzy expert system. Results Eng2020; 6: 100123.
46.
BanksJHinesJLeboldM, et al. Failure modes and predictive diagnostics considerations for diesel engines. Virginia Beach: Pennsylvania State Uvin University Park Applied Research Lab, 2001.
47.
CicekKTuranHTopcuY, et al. Risk-based preventive maintenance planning using Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) for marine engine systems. In: Engineering Systems Management and Its Applications (ICESMA), 2010 Second International Conference on 2010, pp.1–6. Sharjah, United Arab Emirates: IEEE.
48.
LingDHuangHZSongW, et al. Design FMEA for a diesel engine using two risk priority numbers. In: Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS)2012, pp.1–5. Reno, NV: IEEE.
49.
CicekKCelikM.Application of failure modes and effects analysis to main engine crankcase explosion failure on-board ship. Saf Sci2013; 51: 6–10.
50.
CeylanBO.Marine diesel engine turbocharger fouling phenomenon risk assessment application by using fuzzy FMEA method. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment2023.
51.
LazakisIRaptodimosYVarelasT.Predicting ship machinery system condition through analytical reliability tools and artificial neural networks. Ocean Eng2018; 152: 404–415.
52.
MilioulisKBolbotVTheotokatosG.Model-based safety analysis and design enhancement of a marine LNG fuel feeding system. J Mar Sci Eng2021; 9: 69.
53.
MilioulisKBolbotVTheotokatosG, et al. Safety analysis of a high-pressure fuel gas supply system for LNG fuelled vessels. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment2022; 236: 1025–1046.
54.
DionysiouKBolbotVTheotokatosG.A functional model-based approach for ship systems safety and reliability analysis: application to a cruise ship lubricating oil system. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment2022; 236: 244.
55.
KaratuğÇCeylanBOArslanoğluY. A risk assessment of scrubber use for marine transport by rule-based fuzzy FMEA. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment2024; 238. 125.
56.
UflazESezerSITunçelAL, et al. Quantifying potential cyber-attack risks in maritime transportation under Dempster–Shafer theory FMECA and rule-based Bayesian network modelling. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2024; 243.
57.
ParkCKontovasCYangZ, et al. A BN driven FMEA approach to assess maritime cybersecurity risks. Ocean Coast Manag2023; 235.
58.
AmroAGkioulosVKatsikasS.Assessing cyber risk in cyber-physical systems using the ATT&CK framework. ACM Trans Priv Secur2023; 26: 1–33.
59.
SchmittnerCGruberTPuschnerP, et al. Security application of failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA). In: International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. Florence, Italy, Springer, 2014, pp. 310–325.
60.
DghaymDHoangTSTurnockSR, et al. An STPA-based formal composition framework for trustworthy autonomous maritime systems. Saf Sci2021; 136.
61.
ZhouXYLiuZJWangFW, et al. A system-theoretic approach to safety and security co-analysis of autonomous ships. Ocean Eng2021; 222.
62.
GlomsrudJXieJMichaelB, et al. A structured STPA safety and security co-analysis framework for autonomous ships. In: European safety and reliability conference. Germany, Hannover2019.
63.
OmitolaTDownesJWillsG, et al. Securing navigation of unmanned maritime systems. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Robotic Sailing Conference, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Southampton, United Kingdom, 31 August–1 September 2018, vol. 2331, pp.53–62.
64.
CardellicchioD. Naval automation cyber defence guidelines. In: MorosoABucciVAmbrosioL, et al. (eds) Technology and science for the ships of the Future. Trieste: IOS Press, 2018, pp.943–949.
65.
BolbotVTheotokatosGBoulougourisE, et al. A novel cyber-risk assessment method for ship systems. Saf Sci2020; 131.
66.
BolbotVTheotokatosGWennersbergL, et al. A novel risk assessment process: Application to an autonomous inland waterways ship. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2023; 237: 458.
67.
BolbotVTheotokatosGBoulougourisE, et al. Safety related cyber-attacks identification and assessment for autonomous inland ships. In: Internation seminar on safety and security of autonomous vessels. Helsinki, Finland2019.
68.
KavallieratosGKatsikasSGkioulosV, et al. Cyber-attacks against the autonomous ship. In: KatsikasSKCuppensFCuppensN (eds) Computer security. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019, pp.20–36.
69.
KavallieratosGSpathoulasGKatsikasS.Cyber risk propagation and optimal selection of cybersecurity controls for complex cyberphysical systems. Sensors2021; 21: 1691.
70.
BolbotVBasnetSZhaoH, et al. Investigating a novel approach for cybersecurity risk analysis with application to remote pilotage operations. In: European workshop on maritime systems resilience and security, Hamburg, Germany, 2022.
71.
JoYChoiOYouJ, et al. Cyberattack models for ship equipment based on the Mitre ATT&CK framework. Sensors2022; 22: 1860.
72.
de PeraltaFA. Cybersecurity resiliency of marine renewable energy systems-part 1: identifying cybersecurity vulnerabilities and determining risk. Mar Technol Soc J2020; 54: 97–107.
73.
de PeraltaFAWatsonMDBaysRM, et al. Cybersecurity resiliency of marine renewable energy systems part 2: cybersecurity best practices and risk management. Mar Technol Soc J2021; 55: 104–116.
74.
KavallieratosGKatsikasSGkioulosV.SafeSec tropos: joint security and safety requirements elicitation. Comput Stand Interfaces2020; 70.
75.
MelandPHNesheimDABernsmedK, et al. Assessing cyber threats for storyless systems. J Inf Secur Appl2022; 64.
76.
SulamanSMBeerAFeldererM, et al. Comparison of the FMEA and STPA safety analysis methods–a case study. Softw Qual J2019; 27: 349–387.
77.
SchmittnerCMaZSchoitschE, et al. A case study of FMVEA and CHASSIS as safety and security co-analysis method for automotive cyber-physical systems. In: 1st ACM Workshop on Cyber-Physical System Security. Singapore, Republic of Singapore2015.
78.
HussainSKamalAAhmadS, et al. Threat modelling methodologies: a survey. Sci Int2014; 26: 1607–1609.
79.
AbuabedZAlsadehATaweelA.STRIDE threat model-based framework for assessing the vulnerabilities of modern vehicles. Comput Secur2023; 133.
80.
SahayREstayDASMengW, et al. A comparative risk analysis on CyberShip system with STPA-Sec, STRIDE and Coras. Comput Secur2023; 128.
81.
MadanBBBanikMBeinD.Securing unmanned autonomous systems from cyber threats. J Déf Model Simul2019; 16: 119–136.
82.
TamimiAHahnARoyS.Cyber threat impact analysis to air traffic flows through Dynamic Queue Networks. ACM Trans Cyber Syst2020; 4: 1–22.
83.
ChangJ-SJeonY-HSimS, et al. Information security modeling for the operation of a novel highly trusted network in a virtualization environment. Int J Distrib Sens Netw2015; 11.
84.
WongAYChekoleEGOchoaM, et al. On the security of containers: Threat modeling, attack analysis, and mitigation strategies. Comput Secur2023; 128.
85.
AliSSIbrahimMSinanogluO, et al. Security assessment of cyberphysical digital microfluidic biochips. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform2016; 13: 445–458.
86.
KanekoTTakahashiYOkuboT, et al. Threat analysis using STRIDE with STAMP/STPA. In: The international workshop on evidence-based security and privacy in the wild. Nara, Japan, 2018, pp.10–17.
87.
Fatimah SidiAMarzanahJSuriani AffendeyL, et al. A comparative analysis study on information security threat models: a propose for threat factor profiling. J Eng Appl Sci2017; 12: 548–554.
88.
MonteuuisJPBoudguigaAZhangJ, et al. Sara: Security automotive risk analysis method. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM workshop on cyber-physical system security, Incheon, Korea, 2018, pp. 3–14.
89.
AvenT.On the gap between theory and practice in defining and understanding risk. Saf Sci2023; 168.
90.
AvenT.Practical implications of the new risk perspectives. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2013; 115: 136–145.
91.
AskelandTFlageRAvenT.Moving beyond probabilities – strength of knowledge characterisations applied to security. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2017; 159: 196–205.
92.
AskelandTFlageRGuikemaSD.Assessing the risk reducing effect of measures against intelligent attacks: review and discussion of some common approaches. Int J Bus Contin Risk Manag2021; 11: 25–51.
93.
AraskalaeiA.Evaluation of IT security risk standards relative to risk analysis and management science. Norway: University of Stavanger, 2020.
94.
XiangLTheotokatosGCuiH, et al. Parametric knocking performance investigation of spark ignition natural gas engines and dual fuel engines. J Mar Sci Eng2020; 8: 459.
95.
XiangLTheotokatosGDingY.Investigation on gaseous fuels interchangeability with an extended zero-dimensional engine model. Energy Convers Manag2019; 183: 500–514.
96.
StefaniA.An introduction to ship automation and control systems. London, UK: Institute of Marine Engineering, Science & Technology, 2013.
IMO. Revised guidelines for formal safety assessment (FSA) for use in the IMO rule-making process. 2018. London: IMO.
105.
FlageRAvenT.Expressing and communicating uncertainty in relation to quantitative risk analysis. Reliab Theory Appl2009; 4: 9–18.
106.
GoerlandtFReniersG.On the assessment of uncertainty in risk diagrams. Saf Sci2016; 84: 67–77.
107.
KaplanSGarrickBJ.On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Anal1981; 1: 11–27.
108.
FanCMontewkaJZhangD.A risk comparison framework for autonomous ships navigation. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2022; 226.
109.
IMO. MSC. 1/Circ 1455 Guidelines for the approval of alternatives and equivalents as provided for in various IMO instruments. London, UK: IMO, 2013.
110.
StamatelatosMDezfuliHApostolakisG, et al. (eds). Probabilistic risk assessment procedures guide for NASA managers and practitioners. 2nd ed.Washington, DC: NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, 2011.
111.
BolbotVTheotokatosGMcCloskeyJ, et al. A methodology to define risk matrices – application to inland water ways autonomous ships. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng2022; 14.
112.
WróbelKMontewkaJKujalaP.Towards the development of a system-theoretic model for safety assessment of autonomous merchant vessels. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2018; 178: 209–224.
113.
AvenT.The risk concept—historical and recent development trends. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2012; 99: 33–44.
114.
ISO. Risk management - Guidelines - ISO 31000. London: British Standards Institution, 2018.
AdepuSKandasamyNKZhouJ, et al. Attacks on smart grid: power supply interruption and malicious power generation. Int J Inf Secur2020; 19: 189–211.
121.
BozdalMSamieMJennionsI. A survey on CAN bus protocol: attacks, challenges, and potential solutions. In: 2018 international conference on computing, electronics & communications engineering (iCCECE)2018, pp.201–205. Southend: IEEE.
122.
KangTSongHJeongS, et al. Automated reverse engineering and attack for CAN using OBD-II. In: 2018 IEEE 88th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC-Fall)20182018, pp.1–7. Chicago, IL: IEEE.
123.
ArduiniaFvan der VenbCLanzrathaM, et al. The threat of intentional electromagnetic interference to maritime vessels. Delft, Netherlands: IMarEst, 2022.
124.
ShinoharaTNamerikawaT.On the vulnerabilities due to manipulative zero-stealthy attacks in cyber-physical systems. SICE J Control Meas Syst Integr2017; 10: 563–570.
125.
OatesRRobertsJTwomeyB.Chains, links and lifetime: Robust security for autonomous maritime systems. In: DaffeyK (ed.) Marine electrical and control systems safety. Glasgow, UK: IMarEst, 2017, pp. 46–53.
126.
BaugherJQuY.Create the taxonomy for unintentional insider threat via text mining and hierarchical clustering analysis. Eur J Electr Eng Comput Sci2024; 8: 36–49.
IMO. Safety of life at sea. London: International Maritime Organisation, 2014.
129.
AmroAGkioulosV.Cyber risk management for autonomous passenger ships using threat-informed defense-in-depth. Int J Inf Secur2023; 22: 249–288.
130.
YaacoubJ-PANouraHNSalmanO, et al. Robotics cyber security: vulnerabilities, attacks, countermeasures, and recommendations. Int J Inf Secur2022; 21(1): 115–158.
131.
AkbarzadehAKatsikasSK.Dependency-based security risk assessment for cyber-physical systems. Int J Inf Secur2023; 22: 563–578.
132.
VentikosNPLouzisK.Developing next generation marine risk analysis for ships: bio-inspiration for building immunity. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2023; 237: 405–424.
133.
BolbotVTheotokatosGBoulougourisE, et al. A combinatorial safety analysis of cruise ship diesel–Electric Propulsion Plant Blackout. Safety2021; 7: 38.
134.
RoksethBUtneIBVinnemJE.A systems approach to risk analysis of maritime operations. Proc IMechE, Part O: J Risk and Reliability2017; 231: 53–68.
135.
DubeyASantosoSArapostathisA, et al. (eds). Reliability analysis of three-dimensional shipboard electrical power distribution systems. In: 2015 IEEE Electric Ship Technologies Symposium (ESTS). Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
136.
MachiavelliN.The art of war. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1521.
137.
BolbotVOwenDChaalM, et al. Investigation of statutory and class society based requirements for electronic lookout. In: European conference on safety and reliability. Southampon, 2023.
138.
HollnagelE.Safety-I and safety-II: the past and future of safety management. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2018.
139.
LevesonN.Safety III: a systems approach to safety and resilience. Gesamte Eng Syst Lab2020; 16: 2021.
140.
SAE. ARP4761 - Guidance and methods for conducting the safety assessment process on civil airborne systems and equipment. Warendell: SAE, 1996.
141.
EMSA. Study of the risks and regulatory issues of specific cases of MASS. Lisbon: European Maritime Safety Agency, 2020.
