Advertisement

Progress in Additive Manufacturing

, Volume 3, Issue 1–2, pp 87–93 | Cite as

Cybersecurity risks and mitigation strategies in additive manufacturing

  • Anudeep Padmanabhan
  • Jing Zhang
Review Article
  • 481 Downloads

Abstract

Cybersecurity is a critical issue in additive manufacturing (AM), since AM relies on digital files and network connectivity. In this work, we first review several major cybersecurity risks and mitigation strategies in AM industry. Based on the review, we propose a new framework to detect threats and assess vulnerabilities in AM process. We also suggest a new technique of encrypting 3D model information using 2D images which may provide enhanced cybersecurity in AM process.

Keywords

Additive manufacturing 3D printing Cybersecurity Cyberattack 

Notes

Acknowledgements

JZ acknowledges the financial support provided by Walmart Foundation (project title: Optimal Plastic Injection Molding Tooling Design and Production through Advanced Additive Manufacturing).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Brown J, Ezzard J, Goldenberg S, Haid J (2017) 3D opportunity and cyber risk management. https://dupress.deloitte.com/dup-us-en/focus/3d-opportunity/3d-printing-cyber-risk-management.html
  2. 2.
    M. Cotteleer, Joyce J (2014) 3D opportunity: Additive manufacturing paths to performance, innovation, and growth,” Deloitte Review 14 http://dupress.com/articles/dr14-3d-opportunity/
  3. 3.
    D. Papadimitriou (2009) Future internet: the cross-ETP vision document. http://www.future-internet.eu/fileadmin/documents/reports/Cross-ETPs_FI_Vision_Document_v1_0.pdf Accessed 26 Dec 2017
  4. 4.
    X Yao, Z-T Lian, Y Yang, Jin H (2014) Wisdom manufacturing:new humans-computers-things collaborative manufacturing model. Comp Int Manuf Syst 20:1490–1498Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    RM Lee, MJ Assante, Conway T (2014) German steel mill cyber attack—SANS ICS https://ics.sans.org/media/ICS-CPPE-case-Study-2-German-Steelworks_Facility.pdf
  6. 6.
    LF Cómbita, J Giraldo, AA Cárdenas, Quijano N (2015) Response and reconfiguration of cyber-physical control systems: A survey. In: 2015 IEEE 2nd Colombian Conference on Automatic Control (CCAC). pp 1–6Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Z DeSmit, AE Elhabashy, LJ Wells, Camelio JA (2016) Cyber-physical vulnerability assessment in manufacturing systems. Procedia Manuf 5:1060–1074 /01/01/ 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    LD Sturm, CB Williams, JA Camelio, J White, Parker R (2017) Cyber-physical vulnerabilities in additive manufacturing systems: a case study attack on the.STL file with human subjects. J Manuf Syst 44:154–164 /07/01/ 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    ESET (2017) ACAD/Medre.A 10000′s of AutoCAD Designs leaked in suspected industrial espionage. https://www.welivesecurity.com/media_files/white-papers/ESET_ACAD_Medre_A_whitepaper.pdf
  10. 10.
    SB Moore, WB Glisson, Yampolskiy M (2017) Implications of malicious 3D printer firmware. In: Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp. 6089–6098Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S Moore, P Armstrong, T McDonald, Yampolskiy M, (2016) Vulnerability analysis of desktop 3D printer software. In: 2016 resilience week (RWS), pp 46–51Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    E Zeltmann, N Gupta, NG Tsoutsos, M Maniatakos, J Rajendran, Karri R (2016) Manufacturing and Security Challenges in 3D Printing JOM 68, pp 1872–1881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    H Zhang, L Cai, M Golub, Y Zhang, X Yang, K Schlarman et al (2017) Tensile, creep, and fatigue behaviors of 3D printed acrylonitrile butadiene styrene. J Mater Eng Perform.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-017-2961-1-7 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M Yampolskiy, A Skjellum, M Kretzschmar, RA Overfelt, KR Sloan, Yasinsac A (2016) Using 3D printers as weapons. Int J Crit Infrastruct Prot 14:58–71 /09/01/ 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    SR Chhetri, A Canedo, Faruque MAA (2016) KCAD: kinetic cyber-attack detection method for cyber-physical additive manufacturing systems. In: 2016 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD), pp. 1–8Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A Sinha, A Unmesh, Q Huang, Ramani K (2017) SurfNet: Generating 3D shape surfaces using deep residual networks (arXiv170304079S)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical and Energy EngineeringIndiana University-Purdue University IndianapolisIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations