Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/2735960.2735984acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiccpsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Sensor attack detection in the presence of transient faults

Published: 14 April 2015 Publication History

Abstract

This paper addresses the problem of detection and identification of sensor attacks in the presence of transient faults. We consider a system with multiple sensors measuring the same physical variable, where some sensors might be under attack and provide malicious values. We consider a setup, in which each sensor provides the controller with an interval of possible values for the true value. While approaches exist for detecting malicious sensor attacks, they are conservative in that they treat attacks and faults in the same way, thus neglecting the fact that sensors may provide faulty measurements at times due to temporary disturbances (e.g., a tunnel for GPS). To address this problem, we propose a transient fault model for each sensor and an algorithm designed to detect and identify attacks in the presence of transient faults. The fault model consists of three aspects: the size of the sensor's interval (1) and an upper bound on the number of errors (2) allowed in a given window size (3). Given such a model for each sensor, the algorithm uses pairwise inconsistencies between sensors to detect and identify attacks. In addition to the algorithm, we provide a framework for selecting a fault model for each sensor based on training data. Finally, we validate the algorithm's performance on real measurement data obtained from an unmanned ground vehicle.

References

[1]
Black-I Robotics LandShark UGV. http://blackirobotics.com/LandShark_UGV_UC0M.html.
[2]
'Spoofers' Use Fake GPS Signals to Knock a Yacht Off Course. MIT Technology Review, August 2014.
[3]
R. R. Brooks and S. S. Iyengar. Robust distributed computing and sensing algorithm. Computer, 29(6): 53--60, June 1996.
[4]
S. Checkoway, D. McCoy, B. Kantor, D. Anderson, H. Shacham, S. Savage, K. Koscher, A. Czeskis, F. Roesner, and T. Kohno. Comprehensive experimental analyses of automotive attack surfaces. In SEC'11: Proc. 20th USENIX conference on Security, pages 6--6, 2011.
[5]
J. Chen and R. J. Patton. Robust model-based fault diagnosis for dynamic systems. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2012.
[6]
N. Falliere, L. O. Murchu, and E. Chien. W32. stuxnet dossier. White paper, Symantec Corp., Security Response, 2011.
[7]
P. M. Frank. Fault diagnosis in dynamic systems using analytical and knowledge-based redundancy: A survey and some new results. Automatica, 26(3): 459--474, 1990.
[8]
P. M. Frank and X. Ding. Survey of robust residual generation and evaluation methods in observer-based fault detection systems. Journal of process control, 7(6): 403--424, 1997.
[9]
G. Frehse, A. Hamann, S. Quinton, and M. Woehrle. Formal analysis of timing effects on closed-loop properties of control software. In IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium, 2014.
[10]
I. Hwang, S. Kim, Y. Kim, and C. Seah. A survey of fault detection, isolation, and reconfiguration methods. Control Systems Technology, IEEE Transactions on, 18(3): 636--653, May 2010.
[11]
R. Isermann. Process fault detection based on modeling and estimation methods---a survey. Automatica, 20(4): 387--404, 1984.
[12]
R. Ivanov, M. Pajic, and I. Lee. Attack-resilient sensor fusion. In DATE'14: Design, Automation and Test in Europe, 2014.
[13]
R. Ivanov, M. Pajic, and I. Lee. Resilient multidimensional sensor fusion using measurement history. In HiCoNS'14: High Confidence Networked Systems, 2014.
[14]
D. N. Jayasimha. Fault tolerance in a multisensor environment. In SRDS'94: Proc. 13th Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems, pages 2--11, 1994.
[15]
R. E. Kalman. A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. Transactions of the ASME--Journal of Basic Engineering, 82(Series D): 35--45, 1960.
[16]
K. Koscher, A. Czeskis, F. Roesner, S. Patel, T. Kohno, S. Checkoway, D. McCoy, B. Kantor, D. Anderson, H. Shacham, and S. Savage. Experimental security analysis of a modern automobile. In SP'10: IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 447--462, 2010.
[17]
K. Marzullo. Tolerating failures of continuous-valued sensors. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst., 8(4): 284--304, Nov. 1990.
[18]
M. Milanese and C. Novara. Set membership identification of nonlinear systems. Automatica, 40(6): 957--975, 2004.
[19]
M. Pajic, J. Weimer, N. Bezzo, P. Tabuada, O. Sokolsky, I. Lee, and G. Pappas. Robustness of attack-resilient state estimators. In Cyber-Physical Systems (ICCPS), 2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on, pages 163--174, 2014.
[20]
A. Wald. Sequential analysis. Courier Corporation, 1973.
[21]
J. S. Warner and R. G. Johnston. A simple demonstration that the global positioning system (gps) is vulnerable to spoofing. Journal of Security Administration, 25(2): 19--27, 2002.
[22]
A. S. Willsky. A survey of design methods for failure detection in dynamic systems. Automatica, 12(6): 601--611, 1976.
[23]
Y. Zhu and B. Li. Optimal interval estimation fusion based on sensor interval estimates with confidence degrees. Automatica, 42(1): 101--108, 2006.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Multisensor Multitarget Tracking Arithmetic Average Fusion Method Based on Probabilistic Time WindowIEEE Sensors Journal10.1109/JSEN.2023.333726724:3(3583-3593)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2024
  • (2023)Hardware Security Risks and Threat Analyses in Advanced Manufacturing IndustryACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic Systems10.1145/360350228:5(1-22)Online publication date: 9-Sep-2023
  • (2023)Resilient Countermeasures Against Cyber-Attacks on Self-Driving Car ArchitectureIEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems10.1109/TITS.2023.328819224:11(11514-11543)Online publication date: Nov-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
ICCPS '15: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Sixth International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems
April 2015
269 pages
ISBN:9781450334556
DOI:10.1145/2735960
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 14 April 2015

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

Conference

ICCPS '15
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

ICCPS '15 Paper Acceptance Rate 25 of 91 submissions, 27%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 25 of 91 submissions, 27%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)36
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
Reflects downloads up to 12 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Multisensor Multitarget Tracking Arithmetic Average Fusion Method Based on Probabilistic Time WindowIEEE Sensors Journal10.1109/JSEN.2023.333726724:3(3583-3593)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2024
  • (2023)Hardware Security Risks and Threat Analyses in Advanced Manufacturing IndustryACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic Systems10.1145/360350228:5(1-22)Online publication date: 9-Sep-2023
  • (2023)Resilient Countermeasures Against Cyber-Attacks on Self-Driving Car ArchitectureIEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems10.1109/TITS.2023.328819224:11(11514-11543)Online publication date: Nov-2023
  • (2022)Visualization Assisted Approach to Anomaly and Attack Detection in Water Treatment SystemsWater10.3390/w1415234214:15(2342)Online publication date: 29-Jul-2022
  • (2022)Detection and Mitigation of Sensor and CAN Bus Attacks in Vehicle Anti-Lock Braking SystemsACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems10.1145/34955346:1(1-24)Online publication date: 6-Jan-2022
  • (2022)ThingsDND: IoT Device Failure Detection and Diagnosis for Multi-User Smart Homes2022 18th European Dependable Computing Conference (EDCC)10.1109/EDCC57035.2022.00028(113-116)Online publication date: Sep-2022
  • (2022)Introduction to Cyber-Physical Security and ResilienceSecurity and Resilience in Cyber-Physical Systems10.1007/978-3-030-97166-3_2(9-35)Online publication date: 9-Aug-2022
  • (2021)Anomaly Detection from Cyber Threats via Infrastructure to Automated Vehicle2021 European Control Conference (ECC)10.23919/ECC54610.2021.9655077(1788-1794)Online publication date: 29-Jun-2021
  • (2021)A Brief Overview of Optimal Robust Control Strategies for a Benchmark Power System with Different Cyberphysical AttacksComplexity10.1155/2021/66467992021:1Online publication date: 23-Mar-2021
  • (2021)Towards scalable, secure, and smart mission-critical IoT systemsProceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Embedded Software10.1145/3477244.3477624(1-10)Online publication date: 30-Sep-2021
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media