+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Date post: 18-Dec-2021
Category:
Upload: others
View: 4 times
Download: 1 times
Share this document with a friend
68
Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems Anupam Datta Associate Professor Computer Science & Electrical and Computer Engineering
Transcript
Page 1: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Anupam Datta

Associate Professor Computer Science &

Electrical and Computer Engineering

Page 2: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS)

Computing + Communication + Control

2

Page 3: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) under Attack

Computing + Communication + Control

3

Page 4: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Thesis

Accountability is key to securing Cyber-Physical Systems

Causal information flow analysis will enable a unified foundation for accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

4

Page 5: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Accountability

• Detection of attacks

• Explanation and responsibility assignment

• Correction

• Much work in CPS security already on pieces of the accountability puzzle

• Goal: A unified foundation

5

Page 6: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

System

System

Dist

InputA

InputB

Causal Information Flow Measure

Prior work on causal information flow

• Non-interference in deterministic systems [Denning-Denning1977]

• Probabilistic Non-interference [Volpano et al. 1999]

• Measuring Probabilistic Interference [Tschantz et al. 2015, Datta et al. 2015]

• Measuring Quantitative Input Influence [Datta et al. 2016]

Confidentiality = Absence of information flow

Attack Detection= Presence of causal information flow

(e.g., gender causes difference in job ads)

Explanation= Quantifying causal information flow

(e.g., zipcode has higher influence than

income in credit decisions)

6

Page 7: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

My Work: Privacy through Accountability

Work in my research group:

Accountability via audit log analysis: CCS 2011, Oakland 2012, CAV 2014, CCS 2015

Accountability in big data systems: Oakland 2014, CSF 2015, PETS 2015, Oakland 2016

7

Web

services Credit

Law

Enforcement Healthcare Education …

Accountability in Machine Learning Systems

Page 8: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Associative Information Flow Measures

• Popular in research on Quantitative Information Flow • Mutual information, correlation coefficients, Jacard Index etc. to

measure association between inputs and outputs

• Appropriate for measuring confidentiality leaks • Example: sexual orientation revealed by association with social network

friend links

• Not appropriate for accountability • Difficult to trace back to exact cause

• Example: Gender and Weightlifting Ability both associated with job decision classifier but Gender not a cause

8

Page 9: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Today’s Thesis…with Evidence

Accountability is key to securing control systems • Focus on detecting attacks

• Preliminary ideas on responsibility-assignment, corrective measures

Causal information flow analysis will enable a unified foundation for accountability in control systems

9

Joint work with Kar, Sinopoli, Weerakkody at CMU

Technical paper on arXiv

Page 10: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Control

System

Control

System

Dist

Normal Input

Normal Input

Attack Input Attack Output

Normal Output

Idea: Causal Information Flow Measure

Using KL-divergence to measure difference between output distributions

10

Page 11: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

×

Physical System Plant

S

S

A

A

Controller

Communication

Network

S

Detector

Passive Detection

11

Page 12: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Physical System Plant

S

S

A

A

Controller

Communication

Network

S

Detector

Stealthy Attacks

12

Page 13: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

×

S

S

A

A

Communication

Network

S

Detector ✓

Controller

Physical System Plant

Active Detection

13

Page 14: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Topic Summary of Result Previous

Work

Passive

Detection

Information flow as a measure of optimal false

alarm rate.

[7]

Information flow, relation to Neyman-Pearson

detector

Neyman

Pearson Lem.

Stealthy

Attacks

0 – information flow related to left invertibility

of system (zero dynamics without initial state)

[8],[9]

False Data Injection Attacks: Information flow

equivalent to norm of residue bias

[10],[11],[12]

Bias on residues characterize attack detectability [10],[11],[12]

Active

Detection

Replay attacks for certain systems/controllers

are stealthy

[13],[14],[15]

Physical Watermarking can be used to detect

replay attacks

[13],[14],[15]

Unified Treatment

Causal information flow analysis useful for recovering ~10

attack detection results

14

Page 15: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Why useful?

•Systematization of work on CPS Security • Simple natural definition

• A tool kit of analysis techniques

• Recover existing results + prove new results

•Bridge CPS Security and mainstream Security & Privacy • Shared vocabulary of information flow concepts

• New results combining information flow analysis for computing + communication + control systems

15

Workshop Goal

Page 16: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Talk Outline

• System and attack model

• KL divergence measure for causal information flows

• Information flow and detection • Passive detection

• Stealthy attack scenarios

• Active detection

• Toward Responsibility Assignment and Correction

16

Page 17: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

×

S

S

A

A

Communication

Network

Detector ✓

Controller

Physical System Plant

System Model

17

Page 18: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

A discrete linear time-invariant control system

State: Velocity and Position

Inputs: Throttle

Outputs: Velocity and Position

Physical System/Plant

18

Page 19: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Definitions generalize to general nonlinear time varying systems

Physical System/Plant

19

Page 20: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

×

S

S

A

A

Communication

Network

Detector ✓

Physical System Plant

Controller

Control Strategy

20

Page 21: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Control Strategy

• Control strategy leverages the defender’s information

which includes previous outputs, inputs and the system model in order to construct an input which meets system objectives.

• An admissible control strategy is a sequence of deterministic measureable functions

21

Page 22: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

×

Passive Detection

S

S

A

A

Communication

Network

Physical System Plant

Controller

Detector

22

Page 23: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Passive Detection

Detector leverages information in the system to determine if the system is operating normally or under attack .

Implements forms of hypothesis testing

An admissible detector is a sequence of deterministic measureable functions:

23

Page 24: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

×

Physical System Plant

S

S

A

A

Controller

Communication

Network

S

✓ Detector

Attack Model

24

Page 25: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Attack Model

• Attacker can modify a subset of control inputs and sensor outputs.

• Vehicle Example: if the adversary modified the entire input and the position sensor (our second state):

25

Page 26: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Attack Model

• General Setup: Can model nonlinear adversaries

26

Page 27: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Attack Strategy

• An attack strategy leverages an attacker’s information to construct attack sequences.

27

Page 28: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Attack Strategy

• An admissible attack strategy is a sequence of deterministic measureable functions

• Can model adaptive adversaries

28

Page 29: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Attack Model Covers Known Attack Classes

• Replay attack

• False data injection attack

• Zero dynamics attack

• Covert attack

All these attacks on linear systems involve

• Additive attack input

• Varying degrees of knowledge about system

29

Page 30: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Output Distribution

The distribution of the system output given defender and attacker strategies is

30

Control

System

Page 31: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Talk Outline

• System and attack model

• KL divergence measure for causal information flows

• Information flow and detection • Passive detection

• Stealthy attack scenarios

• Active detection

• Toward Responsibility Assignment and Correction

31

Page 32: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Causal Information Flow Measures

•What measures are appropriate? • Open: Exploration of space of measures

•Today • Pick a specific measure

• Define it

• Justify choice

32

Page 33: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

KL-divergence

• KL divergence measures difference between two distributions p and q defined over a set X

• Properties

33

Page 34: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Control

System

Control

System

Proposed Measure: Attack vs Normal AN-KL-Divergence

Measures information flow from

attacker’s inputs to defender’s outputs

34

Page 35: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

AN-KL-Divergence and Probabilistic Non-interference

• Input x is probabilistically non-interfering with output y if changing x doesn’t alter probability distribution of y

• Here is probabilistically noninterfering with iff the AN-KL-Divergence = 0.

35

Agrees with existing qualitative

information flow property

Page 36: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Control

System

Definition: Weak Information Flow

Useful for characterizing stealthy

attacks against active detection

(e.g., zero dynamics attack)

36

Control

System

Page 37: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Control

System

Definition: (M,U)- Weak Information Flow

Useful for characterizing stealthy

attacks that might be revealed through

active detection

(e.g., replay attack)

37

Control

System

Page 38: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Control

System

Definition: Strong Information Flow

Useful for characterizing successful

active detection

(e.g., of replay attacks)

38

Control

System

Page 39: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Talk Outline

• System and attack model

• KL divergence measure for causal information flows

• Information flow and detection • Passive detection

• Stealthy attack scenarios

• Active detection

• Toward Responsibility Assignment and Correction

39

Page 40: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Topic Summary of Result Previous

Work

Passive

Detection

Information flow as a measure of optimal false

alarm rate.

[7]

Information flow, relation to Neyman-Pearson

detector

Neyman

Pearson Lem.

Stealthy

Attacks

0 – information flow related to left invertibility

of system (zero dynamics without initial state)

[8],[9]

False Data Injection Attacks: Information flow

equivalent to norm of residue bias

[10],[11],[12]

Bias on residues characterize attack detectability [10],[11],[12]

Active

Detection

Replay attacks for certain systems/controllers

are stealthy

[13],[14],[15]

Physical Watermarking can be used to detect

replay attacks

[13],[14],[15]

Unified Treatment

40

Page 41: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

10,000 Foot View of Some Results

41

Page 42: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

1. Passive Detection

• Result: AN-KL-Divergence measures optimal false alarm rate

• - strong information flow Detectability with false alarm rate

• - weak information flow Not detectable with false alarm rate

• Technically

• Cast results of Bai et al. 2015 in terms of information flow

• Conceptually

• We recognize that information flow is the fundamental concept; detectability is one consequence (there are others)

• Bai et al. have detectability as the fundamental goal; KL-divergence is an analysis tool

42

Page 43: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

2. Stealthy Attacks

• Result: Complete characterization of conditions under which linear systems exhibit 0- weak information flow (i.e. probabilistic non-interference) for all time k • 0- weak information flow (probabilistic non-interference)

zero dynamics attack when defender does not have knowledge of initial state

• 0- weak information flow (probabilistic non-interference) attacks on systems that are not left invertible when defender has knowledge of initial state

• Technically

• Cast results of Pasqualetti et al. [8], Teixeira et al. [9] in terms of information flow

43

Page 44: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

3. Active Detection

• Result: Characterization of conditions under which

1. Replay attacks can be stealthy based on (M,U)- weak information flow

2. A randomized watermarking active detector generates strong information flow and hence can detect replay attacks.

• Technically

1. More general result than Mo et al. [13,14,15], which assumed certain properties of the detector

2. Quantifying information flow allows us to directly characterize optimal detectability unlike Mo et al. [13], [14], [15]

44

Page 45: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

1. Passive Detection

• Result: AN-KL-Divergence measures optimal false alarm rate

• - strong information flow Detectability with false alarm rate

• - weak information flow Not detectable with false alarm rate

• Technically

• Cast results of Bai et al. 2015 in terms of information flow

• Conceptually

• We recognize that information flow is the fundamental concept; detectability is one consequence (there are others)

• Bai et al. have detectability as the fundamental goal; KL-divergence is an analysis tool

45

Page 46: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Passive Detection

• Passive detector

• Probability of false alarm

• Probability of detection

46

Page 47: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Passive Detection: Optimality (1)

Theorem: Strong Information Flow => Detectability

Let

and

Then there exists a detector such that

1)

2) converges to 0 with rate at least

47

Casting result of (Bai et al 2015) [7] in terms of IF

Page 48: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Passive Detection: Optimality (2)

Theorem: Weak Information Flow => Stealthy

Let

and and is ergodic

Then there is no detector such that

1)

2) converges to 0 with rate at least

48

Casting result of (Bai et al 2015) [7] in terms of IF

Page 49: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

2. Stealthy Attacks

• Result: Complete characterization of conditions under which linear systems exhibit 0- weak information flow (i.e. probabilistic non-interference) for all time k • 0- weak information flow (probabilistic non-interference)

zero dynamics attack when defender does not have knowledge of initial state

• 0- weak information flow (probabilistic non-interference) attacks on systems that are not left invertible when defender has knowledge of initial state

• Technically

• Cast results of Pasqualetti et al. [8], Teixeira et al. [9] in terms of information flow

49

Page 50: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

0-Dynamics Attacks: Background

• 0-Dynamics of a system • Control input u produces non-zero state x but output y = 0

• Consider normal operating condition with (u*, x*, y*)

• 0- Dynamics Attack on linear system • Adversary adds u to u*

• State changes to x + x*

• Output = y + y* = y* (no change!)

50

Page 51: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

S

S

Same!

Example

A vehicle with initial state operating normally will produce the same output as a system with initial state under attack! Cannot be detected without knowledge of initial state

51

Page 52: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

0-Weak Information Flow

• Assume defender has no knowledge of initial state

• Theorem: There exists an attack which generates a 0- weak information flow for all k (there exists probabilistic noninterference for all time k) if and only if with probability 1 for some .

52

Leverages Teixeira et al. [9]

Page 53: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

0-Dynamics Attacks: Result

• 0-weak information flow attacks are equivalent to 0-dynamics attacks Pasqualetti et al. [8], Teixeira et al. [9]

• Result: If the defender has no knowledge of the initial state, a zero information flow attack exists for all time k if there exists

and which satisfy

• One stealthy attack:

53

Page 54: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

3. Active Detection

• Result: Characterization of conditions under which

1. Replay attacks can be stealthy based on (M,U)- weak information flow

2. A randomized watermarking active detector generates strong information flow and hence can detect replay attacks.

• Technically

1. More general result than Mo et al. [13,14,15], which assumed certain properties of the detector

2. Quantifying information flow allows us to directly characterize optimal detectability unlike Mo et al. [13], [14], [15]

54

Page 55: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

2) Inject input 𝑢𝑘 = 𝑢𝑘∗ + Δ𝑢𝑘 1) with optimal inputs

3) with sub-optimal input 4) Binary Detector

Watermarking: Background

55

Page 56: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Watermarking: Strong Information Flow

Randomized watermarking generates

strong information flow for replay

attack

56

Page 57: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Watermarking: Detectability

Randomized watermarking can be used

to detect replay attacks

57

Page 58: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Talk Outline

• System and attack model

• KL divergence measure for causal information flows

• Information flow and detection • Passive detection

• Stealthy attack scenarios

• Active detection

• Toward Responsibility Assignment and Correction

58

Page 59: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

×

S

S

A

A

Communication

Network

S

Physical System Plant

Controller

Detector

Responsibility Assignment

59

Page 60: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Responsibility Assignment: Idea

60

Page 61: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

×

S

S

A

A

Communication

Network

S

Physical System Plant

Detector

Controller

×

×

Correction: Resilient Control

61

Page 62: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Resilient Control: Idea

• Leverage results on detection and responsibility assignment

• For sensor attacks:

1. Detect an information flow from attack inputs.

2. Identify malicious nodes which generate information flow.

3. Construct robust estimate with trusted sensors.

4. Perform resilient control using robust estimate.

62

Page 63: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Today’s Thesis…with Evidence

Accountability is key to securing control systems • Focus on detecting attacks

• Preliminary thoughts on responsibility-assignment, corrective measures

Causal information flow analysis will enable a unified foundation for accountability in control systems

63

Joint work with Kar, Sinopoli, Weerakkody at CMU

Technical paper on arXiv

Page 64: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Toward Accountability in CPS

• Cryptography + Control Systems

Example: Randomized watermarking • Watermark generated using a pseudorandom number generator

(PRNG) • What is an appropriate information flow measure? • Have to restrict to polynomial time adversaries

• Computing System Security + Control Systems

Example: Defending against 0-dynamics attacks • How to reliably communicate initial state to defender?

• A trusted path primitive for CPS?

64

Information flow analysis spanning

cryptography, computing systems,

control systems (models + code)

Page 65: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Thesis

Accountability is key to securing Cyber-Physical Systems

Causal information flow analysis will enable a unified foundation for accountability in CPS

65

Page 66: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

Thanks!

66

Page 67: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

[1] D. E. Denning and P. J. Denning, “Certification of programs for secure information flow,”

Communications of the ACM, vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 504–513, 1977. [Online]. Available:

http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/359636.359712

[2] J. A. Goguen and J. Meseguer, “Security policies and security models,” in IEEE Symposium on

Security and Privacy, 1982, pp. 11–20.

[3] D. M. Volpano and G. Smith, “Probabilistic noninterference in a concurrent language,” Journal of

Computer Security, vol. 7, no. 1, 1999.

[4] M. C. Tschantz, A. Datta, A. Datta, J. M. Wing, “A methodology for information flow experiments,” in

Proceedings of the 28th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Symposium, July 2015.

[5] G. Smith, "On the foundations of quantitative information flow.” in Foundations of software science

and computational structures, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009, pp. 288-302.

[6] A. Datta, S. Sen, Y. Zick, “Algorithmic Transparency via Quantitative Input Influence”, in Proceedings

of 37th IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, May 2016.

[7] C. Z. Bai, F. Pasqualetti, and V. Gupta, “Security in stochastic control systems: Fundamental

limitations and performance bounds,” in American Control Conference (ACC), June 2015.

[8] F. Pasqualetti, F. Dorfler, and F. Bullo, “Attack detection and identification in cyber-physical systems,”

IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 2715–2729, Nov 2013.

[9] A. Teixeira, I. Shames, H. Sandberg, and K. H. Johansson, "A secure control framework for resource-

limited adversaries.” Automatica, vol. 51, pp.135-148, 2015.

[10] Y. Mo and B. Sinopoli, “False data injection attacks in control systems,” in First Workshop on Secure

Control Systems, Stockholm, Sweden, April 2010.

Related Work

Page 68: Accountability in Cyber-Physical Systems

[11] Y. Mo, E. Garone, A. Casavola, and B. Sinopoli, “False data injection attacks against state

estimation in wireless sensor networks,” in 49th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Atlanta,

Georgia, 2010, pp. 5967–5972.

[12]Y. Mo and B. Sinopoli. “Integrity attacks on cyber-physical systems.” In Proceedings of the 1st

international conference on High Confidence Networked Systems, pp. 47-54. ACM, 2012.

[13] Y. Mo and B. Sinopoli, “Secure control against replay attacks,” in 47th Annual Allerton Conference

on Communication, Control, and Computing, Sept 2009, pp. 911–918.

[14] Y. Mo, R. Chabukswar, and B. Sinopoli, “Detecting integrity attacks on SCADA systems,” IEEE

Transactions on Control System Technology, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1396–1407, July 2014.

[15] Y. Mo, S. Weerakkody, and B. Sinopoli, “Physical authentication of control systems: Designing

watermarked control inputs to detect counterfeit sensor outputs,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol.

35, no. 1, pp. 93–109, Feb 2015.

[16] S. Sundaram, M. Pajic, C. Hadjicostis, R. Mangharam, and G. J. Pappas, “The wireless control

network: monitoring for malicious behavior,” in 49th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Atlanta,

GA, Dec 2010, pp. 5979-5984.

[17] H. Fawzi, P. Tabuada, and S. Diggavi, “Security for control systems under sensor and actuator

attacks,” in 51st IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Maui, HI, Dec. 2012, pp. 3412–3417.

[18] ——, “Secure estimation and control for cyber-physical systems under adversarial attacks,” IEEE

Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 1454–1467, June 2014.

[19] S. Mishra, N. Karamchandani, P. Tabuada, and S. Diggavi, “Secure state estimation and control

using multiple (insecure) observers,” in 53rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Los Angeles, CA,

Dec. 2014, pp. 1620–1625.

[20] Q. Zhu and T. Basar, “Robust and resilient control design for cyber-physical systems with an

application to power systems,” in 50th Decision and Control and European Control Conference (CDC-

ECC), Dec. 2011, pp. 4066-4071.

Related Work


Recommended