In this paper we present a model for expressing attacks on control protocols that involve the exchange of messages. Attacks are modeled using the notion of an attacker who can block and/or fabricate messages. These two attack mechanisms cover a variety of scenarios ranging from power grid failures to cyber attacks on oil pipelines. The model provides a method to syntactically express communication systems and attacks, which supports the development of attack and defense strategies. For demonstration purposes, an attack instance is modeled that shows how a targeted messaging attack can result in the rupture of a gas pipeline.
SchneierB. Attack trees. Dr. Dobb’s Journal1999; 24: 21–29.
2.
MooreAEllisonRLingerR. Attack Modeling for Information Security and Survivability. Technical Note CMU/SEI-2001-TN-001, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 2001.
3.
TenCLiuCGovindarasuM. Vulnerability assessment of cybersecurity for SCADA systems using attack trees. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 2007, pp. 1–8.
4.
WuRLiWHuangH. An attack modeling based on hierarchical colored Petri nets. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Computer and Electrical Engineering, 2008, pp. 918–921.
5.
TempletonSLevittK. A requires/provides model for computer attacks. In: Proceedings of the New Security Paradigms Workshop, 2000, pp. 31–38.
6.
NeumannPParkerD. A summary of computer misuse techniques. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth National Computer Security Conference, 1989, pp. 396–407.
7.
UndercofferJPinkstonJJoshiAFininT. A target-centric ontology for intrusion detection. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI Workshop on Ontologies and Distributed Systems, 2004, pp. 47–58.
8.
KuhlMKistnerJCostantiniKSuditM. Cyber attack modeling and simulation for network security analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Winter Simulation Conference, 2007, pp. 1180–1188.
9.
North American Electric Reliability Corporation. Reliability Functional Model, Function Definitions and Functional Entities, Version 5. Princeton, NJ: North American Electric Reliability Corporation, 2009.
10.
StoufferKFalcoJScarfoneK. Guide to Industrial Control Systems Security, Final Public Draft. NIST Special Publication 800-82, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 2008.
11.
StampJBergMBacaM. Reference Model for Control and Automation Systems in Electrical Power, Version 1.2. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories, 2005.
12.
DeckerL. A risk assessment model for pipeline facility operations. Pipeline and Gas Journal2009; 236: 38–44.
13.
ByresEFranzMMillerD. The use of attack trees in assessing vulnerabilities in SCADA systems. In: Proceedings of the International Infrastructure Survivability Workshop, 2004.
14.
EastSButtsJPapaMShenoiS. A taxonomy of attacks on the DNP3 protocol. In:PalmerCShenoiS (eds), Proceedings of the Third Annual IFIP WG 11.10 International Conference on Critical Infrastructure Protection, 2009, pp. 67–81.
15.
HuitsingPChandiaRPapaMShenoiS. Attack taxonomies for the Modbus protocols. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection2008; 1: 37–44.
16.
CheungSLindqvistUFongM. Modeling multistep cyber attacks for scenario recognition. In: Proceedings of the Third DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition, 2003, pp. 284–292.
17.
YeNZhangYBorrorC. Robustness of the Markov-chain model for cyber-attack detection. IEEE Transactions on Reliability2004; 53: 116–123.
18.
CarlsonRTurnquistMNozickL. Expected Losses, Insurability, and Benefits from Reducing Vulnerability to Attacks. Technical Report SAND2004-0742, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, 2004.
19.
McDermottJ. Attack net penetration testing. In: Proceedings of the New Security Paradigms Workshop, 2000, pp. 15–21.
20.
HenryMLayerRZaretD. Coupled Petri nets for computer network risk analysis. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection2010; to appear.
21.
PetersonJ. Petri Net Theory and the Modeling of Systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1981.
22.
BoyerS. SCADA: Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition. Research Triangle Park, NC: The Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society, 2004.
23.
BaetenJ. A Brief History of Process Algebra. Technical Report CSR 04-02, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 2004.
24.
MilnerR. Communication and Concurrency. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1989.
25.
FokkinkW. Introduction to Process Algebra. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2000.
26.
BaetenJBravettiM. A generic process algebra. In: AcetoLGordonA (eds), Algebraic Process Calculi: The First Twenty Five Years and Beyond (BRICS Notes Series NS-05-3). Bertinoro, Italy: BICS, August2005, pp. 24–29.
27.
KnottenbeltWBradleyJ. Tackling large state spaces in performance modelling. In: BernardoMHillstonJ (eds), Formal Methods for Performance Evaluation (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4486). Berlin: Springer, 2007, pp. 318–370.
28.
National Transportation Safety Board. Pipeline Rupture and Release of Fuel Oil into the Reedy River at Fork Shoals, South Carolina. Pipeline Accident Report PB98-916502/NTSB/PAR-98/01, National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC, 1996.
