main| new issue| archive| editorial board| for the authors| publishing house|
Ðóññêèé
Main page
New issue
Archive of articles
Editorial board
For the authors
Publishing house

 

 


ABSTRACTS OF ARTICLES OF THE JOURNAL "INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES".
No. 3. Vol. 31. 2025

DOI: 10.17587/it.31.137-146

S. L. Belyakov, Dr. Sc., Professor, A. V. Bozhenyuk, Dr. Sc., Professor, A. V. Isaev, Postgraduate Student,
Southern Federal University, Taganrog, Russian Federation

The Method of Intelligent Threat Blocking in a Cyberphysical System

Received on July 11, 2024
Accepted on September 17, 2024

Responding to threats to information security in cyber-physical systems is associated with the accumulation of knowledge about the precedents of violations. The factors of influence are both informational and spatiotemporal objects and relationships. Information processes significantly depend on the information generated by sensors, as well as transmitted to the executive equipment. Due to the incompleteness and uncertainty of the data, it seems rational to involve intelligent approaches to predicting dangerous situations and developing solutions to block them. In this paper, we propose a method based on a special model for presenting the experience of analyzing precedents and a model of a fuzzy periodic graph. The precedent of experience is described by a two-component model, which includes the center and the permissible transformations of the center in a given semantic context. The center is a spatio-temporal situation reflecting the connections and relationships between information objects. Acceptable transformations are a set of areas of possible location of objects and connections in the spatial and temporal boundaries of a cyberphysical object. The search for a solution to block the threat is based on a comparison of known and problematic situations. À distinctive feature of the comparison is the transformation of a known situation into an analyzed location. This is realized by evaluating the connectivity and reachability of vertices of a fuzzy graph of objects and relations of a known precedent. Connectivity is interpreted as a necessary condition for the implementation of a threat. Reachability displays vulnerabilities that can trigger a threat. The proposed method can be used both for the classification of abnormal states and for the construction of solutions in the event of incidents. The limits of the practical applicability of the proposed method are discussed. An application example is considered.
Keywords: cyber-physical systems, information security, fuzzy periodic graph, threat blocking, vulnerability detection

P. 137-146

Acknowlegements: The research was carried out at the expense of the grant of the Russian Science Foundation No. 25-21-00182, https://rscf.ru/project/25-21-00182/, implemented by the Southern Federal University.

Full text on eLIBRARY

References

  1. Belyakov S. L., Isaev À . V. Method of supporting the stability of the power supply network based on a geoinformation model, Izvestiya SFedU. Engineering Sciences, 2024, no. 2(238), pp. 31—38 (in Russian).
  2. Korkmaz G., Kim K. H., van der Meer L. P. Cyber-Physical Systems Security: À Survey, ACM Computing Surveys, 2018, pp. 1—28.
  3. Zhang M., Li R., Zhao L., Yu W. Security and Privacy Challenges in Cyber-Physical Systems: À Survey, IEEE Access, 2020, pp. 285—295.
  4. Jbair M., Ahmad B., Maple C., Harrison R. Threat Modeling for Industrial Cyber-Physical Systems: À Comprehensive Review, Computers in Industry, 2022, vol. 137, pp. 1—14, doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2022.103611.
  5. Kim H., Lee T., Park J. R. À Survey on Security and Privacy Issues in Cyber-Physical Systems, Future Generation Computer Systems, 2019, vol. 3, iss. 2, pp. 111—143.
  6. Lv Z., Chen D., Lou R., Alazab À . Artificial Intelligence for Securing Industrial-Based Cyber-Physical Systems, Future Generation Computer Systems, 2021, vol. 117, pp. 291—298, doi: 10.1016/j.future.2020.12.001.
  7. Zhang Y., Zhang Q., Song W., Zhao J. À Survey on Cyber-Physical System Security: Threats, Vulnerabilities, and Protection Mechanisms, IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 2021, pp. 1—37.
  8. Rana A., Iqbal M., Ali S., Ahmed J. Context-Aware Security for Cyber-Physical Systems: À Survey, IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 2019, vol. 54, iss. 11, pp. 1—35.
  9. Liu J., Zhao H., Li X. Fuzzy Modeling of Periodic Processes in Cyber-Physical Systems, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 2021, vol. 657, pp. 1—16.
  10. Chen Y., Xu L., Zhang W. Fuzzy Logic Approach for Uncertain and Periodic System Behaviors, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2019, vol. 12, iss. 1, pp. 1—12.
  11. Kumar M., Jain S., Singh À . Handling Uncertainty in Periodic Processes with Fuzzy Logic: À Review, Journal of Control and Decision, 2020, vol. 80, iss. 6, pp. 913—933.
  12. Zhang T., Liu R., Wang F. Fuzzy Set Theory for Modeling Uncertain and Periodic Events in Industrial Systems, Applied Soft Computing, 2018, pp. 1—55.
  13. Lee S., Park J., Cho Í . Fuzzy Modeling and Control of Periodic Systems with Uncertainty, Journal of Process Control, 2017, vol. 50, iss. 3, pp. 408—419.
  14. Kim K. H., Park A. R., Choi H. S. À Fuzzy Approach for Anomaly Detection in Periodic Cyber-Physical Systems, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 2022, pp. 1—42.
  15. Khan R. A., Mathew M. L., Anitha A. À Comprehensive Survey on Cyber-Physical System Security: Challenges, Research Directions and Future Trends, IEEE Access, 2020, vol. 14, iss. 1, pp. 102—110.
  16. Merlo A. M., Petrella L. Security and Privacy for Cyber-Physical Systems: À Survey of Challenges, Approaches, and Trends, Journal of Systems Architecture, 2019, pp. 46—63.
  17. Cardenas A., Amin S., Sastry S. Modeling Cyber-Physical Attacks and Countermeasures in a Smart Grid Context, IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 2011, pp. 427—449.
  18. Levshun D. S., Gaifulina D. A., Chechulin A. A., Kotenko I. V. Problematic issues of information security of cyber-physical systems, Informatics and Automation, 2020, vol.19, no. 5, pp. 1050—1088, available at: https://doi.org/10.15622/ia.2020.19.5.6
  19. Dong P., Han Y., Guo X., Xie F. À systematic review of studies on cyber physical system security, International Journal of Security and Its Applications, 2015, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 155—164.
  20. Xia X., Liu C., Wang H., Han Z. À Design of Cyber-Physical System Architecture for Smart City. Recent Trends in Intelligent Computing, Communication and Devices, 2020, pp. 967—973.
  21. Gao Y., Peng Y., Xie F., Zhao W. Analysis of security threats and vulnerability for cyber-physical systems, Proceedings of 2013 3rd International Conference on Computer Science and Network Technology, 2013, pp. 50—55.
  22. Izrailov K. E. Generalized classification of interfaces for the transport infrastructure of the smart city, Information Technology, 2021, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 330—336 (in Russian).
  23. Lee J., Bagheri B., Kao H. A. À cyber-physical systems architecture for Industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems, Manufacturing letters, 2015, vol. 3, pp. 18—23.
  24. Jbair M., Ahmad B., Maple C., Harrison R. Threat modelling for industrial cyber physical systems in the era of smart manufacturing, Computers in Industry, 2022, vol. 137, p. 103611, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2022.103611.
  25. Noor Z., Hina S., Hayat F., Shah G. An intelligent context-aware threat detection and response model for smart cyber-physical systems, Internet of Things, 2023, vol. 23, p. 100843, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iot.2023.100843.
  26. Lyu Z., Chen D., Lou R., Alazab À. Artificial intelligence for securing industrial-based cyber—physical systems, Future Generation Computer Systems, 2021, vol. 117, pp. 291—298, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2020.12.001.
  27. Raza S., Ding C. Progress in context-aware recommender systems — An overview, Computer Science Review, 2019, vol. 31, pp. 84—97, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2019.01.001.
  28. Zhou J., Zhou Y., Wang B., Zang J. Human-Cyber-Physical Systems (HCPSs) in the Context of New-Generation Intelligent Manufacturing, Engineering, 2019, vol. 5, iss. 4, pp. 624—636, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2019.07.015.
  29. Kacprzyk J., Belyakov S., Bozhenyuk A., Rozenberg I. Knowledge Representations for Constructing Chains of Contexts in Geographic Information Systems, International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 2021, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1388—1395, doi: https://doi.org/10.2991/ijcis.d.210420.001.
  30. Smith M. J., Goodchild M. F., Longley P. A. Geospatial Analysis: À Comprehensive Guide to Principles Techniques and Software Tools, Troubador Publishing Ltd, Geospatial Analysis, 2018.
  31. Belyakov S., Bozhenyuk A., Kacprzyk J., Rozenberg I. Intelligent Planning of Spatial Analysis Process Based on Contexts, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 2021, pp. 10—17, available at: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-51156-2_2.
  32. Makkar A., Park J. H. Secure CPS: Cognitive inspired framework for detection of cyber-attacks in cyber-physical sys­tems, Information Processing & Management, 2022, vol. 59, iss. 3, p. 102914, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2022.102914.
  33. Jain D. K., Neelakandan S., Veeramani T., Bhatia S., Memon F. H. Design of fuzzy logic-based energy management and traffic predictive model for cyber physical systems, Computers and Electrical Engineering, 2022, vol. 102, p. 108135, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2022.108135.
  34. Hussain M. M., Ali S., Ahmed W. Cognitive Cyber-Physical Systems: À Comprehensive Review, IEEE Access, 2020, pp. 377—404, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2980293.
  35. Lu T., Zheng Y., Kourounis K. D., Huang Z. S. Cognitive Computing for Cyber-Physical Systems: À Review, ACM Computing Surveys, 2021, vol. 11, iss. 4, pp. 208—226, doi: 10.1145/3446368.
  36. An K. S., LaRowe M. F., Johnson J. T. Autonomous Cyber-Physical Systems: The Role of Cognitive Capabilities in Adaptive Behavior, IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 2020, pp. 1—10, doi: 10.1109/TCYB.2020.2993725.
  37. He Z., Li Z. W., Giua À . Cycle time optimization of de­terministic timed weighted marked graphs by transformation, IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., 2017, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 1318—1330.
  38. Tellache N. E. Í ., Boudhar M. Flow shop scheduling problem with conflict graphs, Ann. Oper. Res., 2017, vol. 261, pp. 339—363.
  39. Warren Liao T., Zhang Z., Mount C. R. Similarity measures for retrieval in case-based reasoning systems, Applied Artificial Intelligence, 1998, pp. 267—288.
  40. Osborne H. R., Bridge D. G. À case base similarity framework, Proc. of 4th European Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning (EWCBR'98), 1998, pp. 309—323.
  41. Leake D. B., Kinley A., Wilson D. Case-based similarity as­sessment: estimating adaptability from experience, Proc. of American Association of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-97), 1997, pp. 674—679.
  42. GOST R 57580.1—2017 "Information security systems. Terms and definitions" (in Russian).
  43. Kleene S. C. The Nature of Deductive Reasoning. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 1952, pp. 398, doi: 10.2307/2265990.
  44. Mendelson E. Introduction to Mathematical Logic, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Queens College Flushing, New York, USA, 2015.

To the contents