A whale optimization algorithm-trained artificial neural network for smart grid cyber intrusion detection

Abstract

The smart grid is a revolutionary, intelligent, next-generation power system. Due to its cyber infrastructure nature, it must be able to accurately and detect potential cyber-attacks and take appropriate actions in a timely manner. This paper creates a new intrusion detection model, which is able to classify the binary-class, triple-class, and multi-class cyber-attacks and power-system incidents. The intrusion detection model is based on a whale optimization algorithm (WOA)-trained artificial neural network (ANN). The WOA is applied to initialize and adjust the weight vector of the ANN to achieve the minimum mean square error. The proposed WOA-ANN model can address the challenges of attacks, failure prediction, and failure detection in a power system. We utilize the Mississippi State University and Oak Ridge National Laboratory databases of power-system attacks to demonstrate the proposed model and show the experimental results. The WOA is able to train the ANN to find the optimal weights. We compare the proposed model with other commonly used classifiers. The comparison results show the superiority of the proposed WOA-ANN model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

References

  1. 1.

    Wu Y, Xiao Y, Hohn F, Nordström L, Wang J, Zhao W (2018) Bad data detection using linear WLS and sampled values in digital substations. IEEE Trans Power Delivery 33(1):150–157

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Sridhar S, Hahn A, Govindarasu M (2012) Cyber-physical system security for the electric power grid. Proc IEEE 100(1):210–224

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Pan S, Morris TH, Adhikari U (2015) A specification-based intrusion detection framework for cyber-physical environment in electric power system. Int J Netw Secur 17(2):174–188

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Liu X, Li Z (2014) Local load redistribution attacks in power systems with incomplete network information. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 5(4):1665–1676

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Gupta GP, Kulariya M (2016) A framework for fast and efficient cyber security network intrusion detection using apache spark. Procedia Comput Sci 93:824–831

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Taha AF, Qi J, Wang J, Panchal JH (2016) Risk mitigation for dynamic state estimation against cyber attacks and unknown inputs. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 9(2):886–899

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Haghnegahdar L, Wang Y (2018) Cyber security and risk analysis in power systems. In: 2018 Proceedings of IISE industrial & systems engineering research conference (ISERC), pp 349–354

  8. 8.

    Deng R, Xiao G, Lu R, Liang H, Vasilakos AV (2017) False data injection on state estimation in power systems—attacks, impacts, and defense: a survey. IEEE Trans Industr Inf 13(2):411–423

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Mehrdad S, Mousavian S, Madraki G, Dvorkin Y (2018) Cyber-physical resilience of electrical power systems against malicious attacks: a review. Curr Sustain Renew Energy Rep 5(1):14–22

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Waghmare S, Kazi F, Singh N (2017) Data driven approach to attack detection in a cyber-physical smart grid system. In: 2017 IEEE in control conference (ICC), pp 271–276

  11. 11.

    Pan K, Teixeira A, Cvetkovic, Palensky P (2017) Data attacks on power system state estimation: limited adversarial knowledge vs. limited attack resources. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1708.08355

  12. 12.

    Elhag S, Fernández A, Bawakid A, Alshomrani S, Herrera F (2015) On the combination of genetic fuzzy systems and pairwise learning for improving detection rates on intrusion detection systems. Expert Syst Appl 42:193–202

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Eesa AS, Orman Z, Brifcan AMA (2015) A novel feature-selection approach based on the cuttlefish optimization algorithm for intrusion detection systems. Expert Syst Appl 42(5):2670–2679

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Giani A, Bitar E, Garcia M, McQueen M, Khargonekar P, Poolla K (2013) Smart grid data integrity attacks. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 4(3):1244–1253

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Ericsson GN (2010) Cyber security and power system communication—essential parts of a smart grid infrastructure. IEEE Trans Power Delivery 25(3):1501–1507

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Yan Y, Qian Y, Sharif H, Tipper D (2012) A survey on cyber security for smart grid communications. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor 14(4):998–1010

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Kosut O, Jia L, Thomas RJ, Tong L (2011) Malicious data attacks on the smart grid. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2(4):645–658

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Kosut O, Jia L, Thomas RJ, Tong L (2010) Malicious data attacks on smart grid state estimation: attack strategies and countermeasures. In: 2010 1st IEEE international conference in smart grid communications (Smart Grid Comm), pp 220–225

  19. 19.

    Kosut O, Jia, L, Thomas, RJ, Tong L (2010) On malicious data attacks on power system state estimation. In: 2010 international universities power engineering conference (UPEC), 45th conference IEEE, pp 1–6

  20. 20.

    Kosut O, Jia L, Thomas RJ, Tong L (2010) Limiting false data attacks on power system state estimation. In: 2010 conference on information sciences and systems (CISS), 44th annual conference IEEE, pp 1–6

  21. 21.

    Qin Z, Li Q, Chuah MC (2012) Unidentifiable attacks in electric power systems. In: 2012 Proceedings of IEEE/ACM, 3rd international conference on cyber-physical systems IEEE Computer Society, pp 193–202

  22. 22.

    Yang J, Wu W, Zheng W, Xian W, Zhang B (2016) Performance analysis of sparse recovery models for bad data detection and state estimation in electric power networks. In: 2016 power and energy society general meeting (PESGM) IEEE, pp 1–5

  23. 23.

    Vukovic O, Sou KC, Dan G, Sandberg H (2012) Network-aware mitigation of data integrity attacks on power system state estimation. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 30(6):1108–1118

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Chen J, Abur A (2006) Placement of PMUs to enable bad data detection in state estimation. IEEE Trans Power Syst 21(4):1608–1615

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Yang Q, An D, Min R, Yu W, Yang X, Zhao W (2017) On optimal PMU placement-based defense against data integrity attacks in smart grid. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 12(7):1735–1750

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Wang W, Lu Z (2013) Cyber security in the smart grid: survey and challenges. Comput Netw 57(5):1344–1371

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Pan S, Morris T, Adhikari U (2015) Classification of disturbances and cyber-attacks in power systems using heterogeneous time-synchronized data. IEEE Trans Industr Inf 11(3):650–662

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Lin H, Deng Y, Shukla S, Thorp J, Mili L (2012) Cyber security impacts on all-PMU state estimator-a case study on co-simulation platform GECO. In: 2012 3rd international conference smart grid communications (Smart Grid Comm.) IEEE, pp 587–592

  29. 29.

    Xu W, Hu G, Ho DW, & Feng Z (2019). Distributed secure cooperative control under denial-of-service attacks from multiple adversaries. IEEE Trans Cybern (in press)

  30. 30.

    Feng Z, Hu G (2019) Secure cooperative event-triggered control of linear multiagent systems under DoS attacks. IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol 27(3):1012–1022

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Hink RCB, Beaver JM, Buckner MA, Morris T, Adhikari U, Pan S (2014) Machine learning for power system disturbance and cyber-attack discrimination. In: 2014 resilient control systems (ISRCS) 7th international symposium IEEE, pp 1–8

  32. 32.

    Fahad A, Tari Z, Khalil I, Habib I, Alnuweiri H (2013) Toward an efficient and scalable feature selection approach for internet traffic classification. Comput Netw 57(9):2040–2057

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Gong Y, Fang Y, Liu L, Li J (2014) Multi-agent intrusion detection system using feature selection approach. In: 2014 10th international conference on IEEE in intelligent information hiding and multimedia signal processing (IIH-MSP), pp 528–531

  34. 34.

    Wu Y, Onwuachumba A, Musavi M (2013) Bad data detection and identification using neural network-based reduced model state estimator. In: 2013 green technologies conference IEEE, pp 183–189

  35. 35.

    Mirjalili SA, Lewis A (2016) The whale optimization algorithm. Adv Eng Softw 95:51–67

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Yamany W, Fawzy M, Tharwat A, Hassanien AE (2015) Moth-flame optimization for training multi-layer perceptrons. In: 2015 computer engineering conference (ICENCO), 11th international IEEE, pp 267–272

  37. 37.

    Bozorgi SM, Yazdani S (2019) An improved whale optimization algorithm for optimization problems. J Comput Design Eng 6(3):243–259

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Aljarah I, Faris H, Mirjalili S (2018) Optimizing connection weights in neural networks using the whale optimization algorithm. Soft Comput 22(1):1–15

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Chatterjee S, Sarkar S, Hore S, Dey N, Ashour AS, Balas VE (2017) Particle swarm optimization trained neural network for structural failure prediction of multistoried RC buildings. Neural Comput Appl 28(8):2005–2016

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Ibrahim RT, Mohammed ZT (2017) Training recurrent neural networks by a hybrid PSO-cuckoo search algorithm for problems optimization. Int J Comput Appl 159(3):32–38

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Chatterjee S, Dzitac S, Sen S, Rohatinovici N., Dey N, Ashour AS, Balas VE (2017) Hybrid modified cuckoo search-neural network in chronic kidney disease classification. In: 2017 engineering of modern electric systems (EMES), 14th international conference IEEE, pp 164–167

  42. 42.

    Chaowanawatee K, Heednacram A (2012) Implementation of cuckoo search in RBF neural network for flood forecasting. In: 2012 computational intelligence communication systems and networks (CICSyN), 4th international conference IEEE, pp 22–26

  43. 43.

    Buczak AL, Guven E (2016) A survey of data mining and machine learning methods for cyber security intrusion detection. IEEE Commun Surv Tutor 18(2):1153–1176

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Bhesdadiya R, Jangir P, Jangir N, Trivedi IN, Ladumor D (2016) Training multi-layer perceptron in neural network using whale optimization algorithm. Indian J Sci Technol 9(19):28–36

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Kisi Ö (2004) Multi-layer perceptrons with Levenberg–Marquardt training algorithm for suspended sediment concentration prediction and estimation Levenberg–Marquardt. Hydrol Sci J 49(6):1025–1040

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Power System Attack Datasets—Mississippi State University and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (2014) http://www.ece.uah.edu/~thm0009/icsdatasets/PowerSystem_Dataset_README.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2018

  47. 47.

    Hsu J, Mudd D, Thornton Z (2014) Mississippi State University Project Report-SCADA Anomaly Detection http://www.ece.uah.edu/~thm0009/icsdatasets/MSU_SCADA_Final_Report.pdf. Accessed 3 June 2018

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yong Wang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Haghnegahdar, L., Wang, Y. A whale optimization algorithm-trained artificial neural network for smart grid cyber intrusion detection. Neural Comput & Applic 32, 9427–9441 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-019-04453-w

Download citation

Keywords

  • Smart grid
  • Cyber-attack
  • Whale optimization algorithm (WOA)
  • Artificial neural network (ANN)