Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Game Theory and Cyber Defense

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Games in Management Science

Part of the book series: International Series in Operations Research & Management Science ((ISOR,volume 280))

Abstract

The extensive use of information technology systems in military sector has changed the face of the battlefield and the nature of war. A growing body of literature argues that the game-theoretic reasoning is well-suited to many problems in cyber defense. A game between a defender and an attacker trying to gain access to computers remotely is a typical strategic interaction in this domain. This chapter discusses how game theory can be applied in cyberspace. It offers a comprehensive review of literature on the application of game theory in this area. It proposes and illustrates a new game formulation combining game theory and other techniques. The chapter highlights the recognized challenges associated with the applicability of game theory in the cyber world. It discusses how the game-theoretic formalism can be adapted to obtain sound solutions in a reasonable time.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Acquaviva, J. R. (2017). Optimal cyber-defence strategies for advanced persistent threats: A game theoretical analysis. Master Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, A., Reich, P., & Weinstein, S. (2012). A non-militarised approach to cyber-security. In E. Filiol & R. Erra (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Information Warfare and Security (pp. 1–8). Laval: Academic Conferences & Publishing International Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alpcan, T., & Basar, T. A. (2004). Game theoretic approach to decision and analysis in network intrusion detection. In Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control. Hawaii: IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • An, B., Tambe, M., Ordonez, F., Shieh, E., & Kiekintveld, C. (2011). Refinement of strong Stackelberg equilibria in security games. In Proceedings of the 25th Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 587–593). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aslanoglu, R., & Tekir, S. (2012). Recent cyberwar spectrum and its analysis. In Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Information Warfare and Security (pp. 45–52). Laval: Academic Conferences & Publishing International Ltd..

    Google Scholar 

  • Azaiez, N., & Bier, V. M. (2007). Optimal resource allocation for security in reliability systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 181(2), 773–786.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachrach, Y., Porat, E., & Rosenschein, J. S. (2013). Sharing rewards in cooperative connectivity games. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 47, 281–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baston, V. J., & Bostock, F. A. (1988). Deception games. International Journal of Game Theory, 17(2), 129–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernier, M., LeBlanc, S., & Morton, B. (2012). Metrics framework of cyber operations on command and control. In Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Information Warfare and Security (pp. 53–62). Laval: Academic Conferences & Publishing International Ltd..

    Google Scholar 

  • Bier, V. M., Cox, L. A., & Azaiez, M. N. (2009). Why both game theory and reliability theory are important in defending infrastructure against intelligent attacks (chapter 1). In V. M. Bier & M. N. Azaiez (Eds.), Game theoretic risk analysis of security threats (pp. 1–11). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloem, M., Alpcan, T., & Basar, T. (2006). Intrusion response as a resource allocation problem. In IEEE Conference on Decision and Control. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, P., Hash, J., & Wilson, M. (2006). Information security handbook: A guide for managers. Gaithersburg, MD: NIST Special Publication 800–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandenburger, A. (2007). Cooperative game theory: Characteristic functions, allocations, marginal contribution. New York: Stern School of Business, New York University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breton, M., Sokri, A., & Zaccour, G. (2008). Incentive equilibrium in an overlapping-generations environmental game. European Journal of Operational Research, 185(2), 687–699.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, R. (2000). C4I defensive infrastructure for survivability against multi-mode attacks. In Proceedings of 21st Century Military Communication-Architectures and Technologies for Information Superiority. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, T. E., & Grosu, D. (2011). A game theoretic investigation of deception in network security. Security and Communication Networks, 4(10), 1162–1172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, F. (1998). A note on the role of deception in information protection. Computers and Security, 17(6), 483–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coniglio, S. (2013). Algorithms for finding leader-follower equilibrium with multiple followers. Ph.D. Thesis, Politecnico di Milano.

    Google Scholar 

  • Do, C. T., Tran, N. H., Hong, C., Kamhoua, C. A., Kwiat, K. A., Blasch, E., Ren, S., Pissinou, N., & Iyengar, S. S. (2017). Game theory for cyber security and privacy. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 50(2), 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielder, A., Panaousis, E., Malacaria, P., Hankin, C., & Smeraldi, F. (2014). Game theory meets information security management. In Information Security and Privacy Conference (pp. 15–29). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guan, Y., & Zhang, L. (2010). Network forensics. In J. R. Vacca (Ed.), Managing information security (pp. 197–212). Rockland, MA: Syngress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gueye, A. (2011). A game theoretical approach to communication security. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, J. (2015). Dominion: A game of information exploitation. Master Thesis, University of New Mexico.

    Google Scholar 

  • Information Resources Management Association. (2018). Game theory: Breakthroughs in research and practice (1st ed.). Hershey PA: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jafarian, J. H., Al-Shaer, E., & Duan, Q. (2013). Formal approach for route agility against persistent attackers. In 18th European Symposium on Research in Computer Security. Egham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain, M., Tsai, J., Pita, J., Kiekintveld, C., Rathi, S., Ordone, F., & Tambe, M. (2010). Software assistants for randomized patrol planning for the LAX airport police and the federal air marshals service. Interfaces, 40(4), 267–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiekintveld, C., Lisy, V., & Pibil, R. (2015). Game-theoretic foundations for the strategic use of honeypots in network security. In Cyber warfare (pp. 81–101). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korzhyk, D., Yin, Z., Kiekintveld, C., Conitzer, V., & Tambe, M. (2011). Stackelberg vs. nash in security games: An extended investigation of interchangeability, equivalence, and uniqueness. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 41, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang, X., & Xiao, Y. (2013). Game theory for network security. IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials, 15(1), 472–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, P., Zang, W., & Yu, M. (2005). Incentive-based modeling and inference of attacker intent, objectives, and strategies. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security, 8(1), 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matyas, V., & Riha, Z. (2002). Biometric authentication — security and usability. In B. Jerman-Blazic & T. Klobucar (Eds.), Advanced communications and multimedia security. The International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP) (Vol. 100). Boston, MA: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, B. (2003). The honeynet arms race. IEEE Security Privacy, 1(6), 79–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDowell, M. (2009). Understanding denial-of-service attacks. Security Tip (ST04–015). Washington, DC: US-CERT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miyachi, T., Narita, H., Yamada, H., & Furuta, H. (2011). Myth and reality on control system security revealed by Stuxnet. In The Society of Instrument and Control Engineers (SICE) Annual Conference (pp. 1537–1540). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moisan, F., & Gonzalez, C. (2017). Security under uncertainty: Adaptive attackers are more challenging to human defenders than random attackers. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 982.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, T., Friedman, A., & Procaccia, A. D. (2010). Would a ‘Cyber Warrior’ protect us? Exploring trade-offs between attack and defense of information systems. In Proceedings of the 2010 Workshop on New Security Paradigms (pp. 85–94). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musman, S., & Turner, A. J. (2018). A game oriented approach to minimizing cybersecurity risk. International Journal of Safety and Security Engineering, 8(2), 212–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myerson, R. B. (1991). Game theory: Analysis of conflict. Cumberland, MD: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, A., Watson, T., Norris, P., Duffy, A., & Isbell, R. (2012). A taxonomy of technical attribution techniques for cyber attacks. In E. Filiol & R. Erra (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Information Warfare and Security (pp. 188–197). Laval: Academic Conferences & Publishing International Ltd..

    Google Scholar 

  • NIST. (2002). Risk management guide for information technology systems (pp. 800–830). Gaithersburg, MD: NIST Special Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ottis, R. (2008). Analysis of the 2007 cyber attacks against Estonia from the information warfare perspective. In Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Information Warfare (pp. 163–168). Plymouth: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pibil, R., Lisy, V., Kiekintveld, C., Bosansky, B., & Pechoucek, M. (2012). Game theoretic model of strategic honeypot selection in computer networks. In J. Grossklags & J. Walrand (Eds.), Decision and Game Theory for Security. GameSec 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 201–220). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podins, K., & Czosseck, C. (2012). A vulnerability-based model of cyber weapons and its implications for cyber conflict. International Journal of Cyber Warfare and Terrorism, 2(1), 14–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasouli, M., Miehling, E., & Teneketzis, D. (2014). A supervisory control approach to dynamic cyber-security. In R. Poovendran & W. Saad (Eds.), Decision and game theory for security (pp. 99–117). New York: Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, M., Jones, K., & Janicke, H. (2015). Cyber warfare: Issues and challenges. Computer and Security, 49, 70–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, N. C., Custy, E. J., & Duong, B. T. (2007). Defending cyberspace with fake honeypots. Journal of Computers, 2(2), 25–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, S., Ellis, C., Shiva, S., Dasgupta, D., Shandilya, V., & Wu, Q. (2010). A survey of game theory as applied to network security. Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 43(Part 1), 880–889.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shamshirband, S., Patel, A., Anuar, N. B., Kiah, M. L. M., & Abraham, A. (2014). Cooperative game theoretic approach using fuzzy Q-learning for detecting and preventing intrusions in wireless sensor networks. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 32, 228–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiva, S., Bedi, H., Simmons, C., Fisher, M., & Dharam, R. (2012). A holistic game inspired defense architecture. In International Conference on Data Engineering and Internet Technology. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokri, A. (2018). Optimal resource allocation in cyber-security: A game theoretic approach. Procedia Computer Science, 134, 283–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tambe, M. (2011). Security and game theory: Algorithms, deployed systems, lessons learned. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • The American Department of Defence (DoD). (2011). Cyber Intelligence Preparation of the Environment (CIPE). Technical Task Order 11-0002, Version 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Vuuren, J. J., Phahlamohlaka, J., & Leenen, L. (2012). Governance of Cybersecurity in South Africa. In Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Information Warfare and Security (pp. 135–144). Laval: Academic Conferences & Publishing International Ltd..

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, D. A., & Larsen, G. N. (2003). Techniques for cyber attack attribution. Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analysis. IDA Paper P-3792.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zakrzewska, A., & Ferragut, E. (2011). Modeling cyber conflicts using an extended petri net formalism. In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Cyber Security (pp. 60–67). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziolkowski, K. (2010). Computer network operations and the law of armed conflict. Military Law and Law of War Review, 49(2), 47–94.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Government of Canada, Department of National Defence, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Abderrahmane Sokri

Authors
  1. Abderrahmane Sokri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abderrahmane Sokri .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Chair in Energy Sector Management, HEC Montréal Energy Sector Management, Montréal, QC, Canada

    Pierre-Olivier Pineau

  2. Faculty of Business, Athabasca University, Athabasca, AB, Canada

    Simon Sigué

  3. Department of Marketing, GERAD and HEC Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada

    Sihem Taboubi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sokri, A. (2020). Game Theory and Cyber Defense. In: Pineau, PO., Sigué, S., Taboubi, S. (eds) Games in Management Science. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 280. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19107-8_18

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation