4.5 Article

Battle of the Attack Detection Algorithms: Disclosing Cyber Attacks on Water Distribution Networks

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000969

关键词

Water distribution systems; Cyber-physical attacks; Cyber security; EPANET; Smart water networks; Attack detection

资金

  1. National Research Foundation (NRF), Singapore under National Cybersecurity RD Programme [NRF2014NCR-NCR001-40]
  2. European Union [739551]
  3. Qatar National Research Fund (QNRF) [NPRP8-1292-2-548]
  4. US National Science Foundation [1728629]
  5. Lucy and Stanley Lopata Endowment at Washington University in St. Louis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The BATtle of the Attack Detection ALgorithms (BATADAL) is the most recent competition on planning and management of water networks undertaken within the Water Distribution Systems Analysis Symposium. The goal of the battle was to compare the performance of algorithms for the detection of cyber-physical attacks, whose frequency has increased in the last few years along with the adoption of smart water technologies. The design challenge was set for the C-Town network, a real-world, medium-sized water distribution system operated through programmable logic controllers and a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system. Participants were provided with data sets containing (simulated) SCADA observations, and challenged to design an attack detection algorithm. The effectiveness of all submitted algorithms was evaluated in terms of time-to-detection and classification accuracy. Seven teams participated in the battle and proposed a variety of successful approaches leveraging data analysis, model-based detection mechanisms, and rule checking. Results were presented at the Water Distribution Systems Analysis Symposium (World Environmental and Water Resources Congress) in Sacramento, California on May 21-25, 2017. This paper summarizes the BATADAL problem, proposed algorithms, results, and future research directions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据