Advertisement

WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 129–163 | Cite as

MaCRA: a model-based framework for maritime cyber-risk assessment

  • Kimberly TamEmail author
  • Kevin Jones
Article
  • 249 Downloads

Abstract

In the current economy, roughly 90% of all world trade is transported by the shipping industry, which is now accelerating its technological growth. While the demand on mariners, ship owners, and the encompassing maritime community for digital advances (particularly towards digitization and automation) has led to efficient shipping operations, maritime cyber-security is a pertinent issue of equal importance. As hackers are becoming increasingly aware of cyber-vulnerabilities within the maritime sector, and as existing risk assessment tools do not adequately represent the unique nature of maritime cyber-threats, this article introduces a model-based risk assessment framework which considers a combination of cyber and maritime factors. Confronted with a range of ship functionalities, configurations, users, and environmental factors, this framework aims to comprehensively present maritime cyber-risks and better inform those in the maritime community when making cyber-security decisions. By providing the needed maritime cyber-risk profiles, it becomes possible to support a range of parties, such as operators, regulators, insurers, and mariners, in increasing overall global maritime cyber-security.

Keywords

Maritime Cyber-security Risk assessment Cyber-threats 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their great appreciation to Tom Crichton, Captain Robert Hone, and Steven Furnell from the University of Plymouth for their assistance and guidance throughout this paper.

References

  1. Allianz Global Corporate and Specialty SE (2016) Safety and shipping review 2016. Allianz Global Corporate and SpecialtyGoogle Scholar
  2. Archives UN Administration R (2016) CFR Title 47 (parts 80-end) code of federal regulation title 47 telecommunications revised as of October 1, 2016. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)Google Scholar
  3. Balduzzi M (2014) AIS exposed understanding vulnerabilities & attacks 2.0. BlackHatGoogle Scholar
  4. Bateman S (2010) Regional maritime security: threats and risk assessments. University of WollongongGoogle Scholar
  5. BBC News (2009) Nuclear subs collide in atlantic. BBCGoogle Scholar
  6. BigOceanData (2016) AIS and anti-piracy maritime security. BigOceanDataGoogle Scholar
  7. BIMCO, CLIA, ICS, INTERCARGO, INTERTANKO (2016) The guidelines on cyber security onboard ships v2.0. International Chamber of ShippingGoogle Scholar
  8. Bordonali C, Ferraresi s, Richter W (2017) Shifting gears in cyber security for connected cars. McKinseyĊompany Advanced IndustriesGoogle Scholar
  9. Borgovini R, Pemberton s, Rossi M (1993), Failure mode, effects, and criticality analysis (FMECA). Reliability Analysis CenterGoogle Scholar
  10. den Braber F, Hogganvik I, Lund M S, Stølen K, Vraalsen F (2007) Model-based security analysis in seven steps — a guided tour to the coras method. BT Technology JournalGoogle Scholar
  11. Cappelli D, Moore A, Trzeciak R (2012) The CERT guide to insider threats: How to prevent, detect and respond to information technology crimes (theft, Sabotage, Fraud), Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  12. Cassidy W (2017) China-based cyberattack hits logistics operators, shippers. Outsource 5(6):1–8Google Scholar
  13. Cavotec (2014) Moormaster frequently asked questions. CavotecGoogle Scholar
  14. CERT Insider Threat Center (2014) Unintentional insider threats: Social engineering. Tech. Rep. CMU/SEI-2013-TN-024, Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon University, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  15. Cherdantseva Y, Burnap P, Blyth A, Eden P, Jones K, Soulsby H, Stoddart K (2016) A review of cyber security risk assessment methods for scada systems. Computers & Security 56Google Scholar
  16. Coffed J (2014) The threat of gps jamming. ExelisGoogle Scholar
  17. Collier E (2017) eLoran: More accurate & less vulnerable but not a done deal yet. Marine electronicsGoogle Scholar
  18. Collins R (2017) The state of cybersecurity in the rail industry. White paperGoogle Scholar
  19. Committee JH, Harwood S (2015) Cyber risk. Joint Hull Committee (JHC)Google Scholar
  20. Control CAT (2015) Cyber security project. https://www.csfi.us
  21. Costa NA, Jakobsen JJ, Weber R, Lundh M, MacKinnon SN (2018) Assessing a maritime service website prototype in a ship bridge simulator: navigators’ experiences and perceptions of novel e-navigation solutions. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-018-0155-2
  22. Costin A (2016) Security of cctv and video surveillance systems: Threats, vulnerabilities, attacks, and mitigations. In: Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on trustworthy embedded devicesGoogle Scholar
  23. CyberKeel (2014a) Maritime cyber-risks. NCC Group PublicationGoogle Scholar
  24. CyberKeel (2014b) Security risks and weaknesses in ecdis systems. NCC Group PublicationGoogle Scholar
  25. Danish Defence Intelligence Sevice’s Center for Cyber Security (2014) Threat assessment: The cyber threat against the maritime sector. Marine CyberwatchGoogle Scholar
  26. Daszuta W, Ghosh S (2018) Seafarers’ perceptions of competency in risk assessment and management: an empirical study. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-018-0156-1
  27. Degani A (2004) Taming HAL: Designing Interfaces Beyond 2001. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  28. Dyryavyy Y (2014) Preparing for cyber battleships: electronic chart display and information system security. NCC Group PublicationGoogle Scholar
  29. ECDIS Info (2014) ECDIS Regulations. http://www.ecdis-info.com/ecdis_regulations.html
  30. European Cybercrime center (2014) The internet organised crime threat assessment (iOCTA). European Police Office, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  31. Fitch C (2004) Crime and punishment: The psychology of hacking in the new millennium. SANS InstituteGoogle Scholar
  32. Francillon A, Danev B, Capkun S (2011) Relay attacks on passive keyless entry and start systems in modern cars. Network and Distributed System Security SymposiumGoogle Scholar
  33. Franckx E (2001) Fisheries enforcement related legal and institutional issues: national, subregional or regional perspectives. FAO legislative study 71. Development Law Service: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsGoogle Scholar
  34. Goerlandt F, Montewka J (2015) Maritime transportation risk analysis: review and analysis in light of some foundational issues. Reliability Engineering & System SafetyGoogle Scholar
  35. GPS World staff (2016) US coast guard issues gps jamming alert. GPS WorldGoogle Scholar
  36. Grant A, Williams P, Basker S (2014) GPS jamming and the impact on maritime navigation. The General Lighthouse AuthoritiesGoogle Scholar
  37. Heffner C (2013) Exploiting surveillance cameras like a hollywood hacker. Tactical Network Solutions, ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  38. Igure VM, Laughter SA, Williams RD (2006) Security issues in scada networks. Computers & SecurityGoogle Scholar
  39. IMO Navigation (2017) http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety/Navigation/, accessed: 2017-05-17
  40. International Chamber of Shipping (2016) Review of maritime transport. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)Google Scholar
  41. International Maritime Organization (1974) International convention for the safety of life at sea. IMOGoogle Scholar
  42. International Maritime Organization (2004) Solas chapter V annex 17: Automatic identification systems (AIS). IMOGoogle Scholar
  43. International Maritime Organization (2009a) Solas ch V regulation 19: Carriage requirements for shipborne navigational systems and equipment. IMOGoogle Scholar
  44. International Maritime Organization (2009b) Solas chapter V regulation 19-1: Long range identification and tracking of ships. IMOGoogle Scholar
  45. Jones K, Tam K, Papadaki M (2016) Threats and impacts in maritime cyber security. IET Engineering & Technology ReferenceGoogle Scholar
  46. Kröner U, Greidanus H, Gallagher R, Sironi M, Azzalin G, Littmann F, Tebaldi P, Timossi p, Shaw D (2009) Report on authentication in fisheries monitoring. Joint Research Centre (JRC)Google Scholar
  47. Labunets K, Paci F, Massacci F, Ruprai R (2014) An experiment on comparing textual vs. visual industrial methods for security risk assessment. In: 2014 IEEE 4th International Workshop on Empirical Requirements Engineering (EmpiRE)Google Scholar
  48. Lane RO, Nevell DA, Hayward SD, Beaney TW (2010) Maritime anomaly detection and threat assessment. 13th International Conference on Information FusionGoogle Scholar
  49. Latin America & Caribbean (2014) Seized n korean ship: Cuban weapons on board. BBCGoogle Scholar
  50. Leyden J (2016) Water treatment plant hacked, chemical mix changed for tap supplies. The RegisterGoogle Scholar
  51. Lund MS, Solhaug B, Stlen K (2010) Model-Driven Risk analysis: The CORAS approach. Springer Publishing Company, IncorporatedGoogle Scholar
  52. Maersk (2017) A. P. Moller Maersk improves underlying profit and grows revenue in first half of the year. Maersk https://edit.maersk.com/en/the-maersk-group/press-room/press-release-archive/2017/8/a-p-moller-maersk-interim-report-q2-2017
  53. Man Y, Lundh M, MacKinnon SN (2018) Managing unruly technologies in the engine control room: from problem patching to an architectural thinking and standardization. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-018-0159-y
  54. MarEx (2016) Nigerian navy: Crewmembers involved in pirate attacks. The Maritime ExecutiveGoogle Scholar
  55. Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) (1997) Safety digest 02/1997. gov.ukGoogle Scholar
  56. Marine accident investigation branch (2012) Grounding of CSL THAMES in the Sound of Mull 9 august 2011. Marine accident investigation branch (MAIB)Google Scholar
  57. Marine accident investigation branch (2014) Report on the investigation of the grounding of Ovit in the Dover Strait on 18 september 2013. Marine accident investigation branch (MAIB)Google Scholar
  58. Montewka J, Ehlers S, Goerlandt F, Hinz T, Tabri K, Kujala P (2014) A framework for risk assessment for maritime transportation systems—a case study for open sea collisions involving ropax vessels. Reliability Engineering & System SafetyGoogle Scholar
  59. Moorex M (2014) Mooring and auto-mooring solutions. ShipServGoogle Scholar
  60. Mordechai G, Kedma G, Kachlon A, Elovici Y (2014) Airhopper: Bridging the air-gap between isolated networks and mobile phones using radio frequencies. Malicious & Unwanted Software ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  61. Nankivell KL, Reeves J, Pardo RP (2017) The indo-asia-pacific’s maritime future: A practical assessment of the state of asian seas. Daniel K. Inouye Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies (DKI APCSS) and King’s College London (KCL)Google Scholar
  62. National PNT Advisory Board (2010) Jamming the global positioning system: A national security threat recent events and potential cures. General Lighthouse AuthoritiesGoogle Scholar
  63. NIST (2012) Guide for conducting risk assessments - information security. NIST Special publication 800–30Google Scholar
  64. Nordström J, Goerlandt F, Sarsama J, Leppänen P, Nissilä M, Ruponen P, Lübcke T, Sonninen S (2016) Vessel triage: A method for assessing and communicating the safety status of vessels in maritime distress situations. Safety ScienceGoogle Scholar
  65. Norway MP (2017) Inert gas system (IGG). Maritime Protection ASGoogle Scholar
  66. Offshore Blue (2013) Tales of the unexpected. The Navigator: Inspiring professionalism in marine navigatorsGoogle Scholar
  67. Offshore Blue (2016) A re-cap of the navtex system. Navigator’s NewsletterGoogle Scholar
  68. Peltier TR (2005) Information security risk analysis. Auerbach Publishing, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rios Insua D, Banks D, Rios J (2016) Modeling opponents in adversarial risk analysis. Risk AnalysisGoogle Scholar
  70. Rolls Royce (2017) Autonomous ships: The next step. Marine Ship IntelligenceGoogle Scholar
  71. Rothblum A (2000) Human error and marine safety. International Workshop on Human Factors in Offshore Operations (HFW2002)Google Scholar
  72. Safa HH, Souran DM, Ghasempour M, Khazaee A (2016) Cyber security of smart grid and scada systems, threats and risks. In: CIRED Workshop 2016Google Scholar
  73. Santamarta R (2014a) Satcom terminals: Hacking by air, sea, and landGoogle Scholar
  74. Santamarta R (2014b) A wake-up call for satcom security. IOActiveGoogle Scholar
  75. Santamarta R (2015) Maritime security: Hacking into a voyage data recorder (VDR). IOActiveGoogle Scholar
  76. Schmidt D, Radke K, Camtepe S, Foo E, Ren M (2016) A survey and analysis of the gnss spoofing threat and countermeasures. ACM Comput SurvGoogle Scholar
  77. SeaCert (2016) Global maritime distress and safety system (GMDSS) radio operator. Maritime NZGoogle Scholar
  78. ESC Global Security (2015) Maritime cyber security white paper: Safeguarding data through increased awareness. ESCGS Cyber Security White PapersGoogle Scholar
  79. Simon H, Ray H (2005) A taxonomy of network and computer attacks. Computers and SecurityGoogle Scholar
  80. Snyder D, Powers J, Bodine-Baron E, Fox B, Kendrick L, Powell M (2015) Improving the cybersecurity of u.s air force military systems throughout their life cycles. RAND corporation Research ReportGoogle Scholar
  81. Sommestad T, Ekstedt M, Holm H (2013) The cyber security modeling language: A tool for assessing the vulnerability of enterprise system architectures. IEEE Systems JournalGoogle Scholar
  82. Stålhane T, Sindre G (2014) An experimental comparison of system diagrams and textual use cases for the identification of safety hazards. Int J Inf Syst Model DesGoogle Scholar
  83. Suh J (2014) The failure of the south korean national security stateGoogle Scholar
  84. Tam K, Jones K (2018a) Cyber-risk assessment for autonomous ships. IEEE TCS Cyber SecurityGoogle Scholar
  85. Tam K, Jones KD (2018b) Maritime cybersecurity policy: the scope and impact of evolving technology on international shipping.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2018.1513053
  86. Traub P, Hudson R (2007) Alarm management strategies on ships bridges and railway control rooms, a comparison of approaches and solutions. Paper read at RINA Event, at LondonGoogle Scholar
  87. Trend news agency (2012) Iran oil tankers said by zanzibar to signal wrong flag. BloombergGoogle Scholar
  88. United States General Accounting Office (1999) Information security risk assessment practices of leading organizations. GAO/AIMD-98-68Google Scholar
  89. US Army Criminal Investigation Command (2017a) Cyber sextortion. CPF 0002-17-CID361-9HGoogle Scholar
  90. US Army Criminal Investigation Command (2017b) Cybersecurity: Sextortion exploitation of u.s. service members. U.S. Army Criminal Investigation CommandGoogle Scholar
  91. US Department of Homeland Security (2015) Gps and critical infrastructure. Civil GPS Service Interface CommitteeGoogle Scholar
  92. USMRC Maritime Cyber Assurance Research (2016) The reality of shipboard cyber vulnerabilities. USMRC Maritime Cyber Assurance Team (MCAT)Google Scholar
  93. Vandenborn Y, Bell R (2015) Standard safety special edition - ECDIS assisted grounding. Marine accident investigation branch (MAIB)Google Scholar
  94. Wagstaff J (2014) All at sea: Global shipping fleet exposed to hacking threat. Reuters, Canary WharfGoogle Scholar
  95. Weintrit A (2015) Activities in Navigation: Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation. Taylor & Francis GroupGoogle Scholar
  96. Wingrove M (2016) Lack of training causes ship accidents and detentions. Marine Electronics & CommunicationsGoogle Scholar
  97. Yeomans G (2014) Autonomous vehicles handing over control: Opportunities and risks for insurance. Lloyd’s, LondonGoogle Scholar
  98. Zhang J, Ioannou P (2006) Automated container transport system between inland port and terminals. ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer SimulationGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© World Maritime University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PlymouthDrake CircusUK

Personalised recommendations