Advertisement

Risk Assessment for IoT-Enabled Cyber-Physical Systems

  • Ioannis Stellios
  • Panayiotis KotzanikolaouEmail author
  • Mihalis Psarakis
  • Cristina Alcaraz
Chapter
  • 4 Downloads
Part of the Learning and Analytics in Intelligent Systems book series (LAIS, volume 14)

Abstract

Internet of Things (IoT) technologies have enabled Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) to become fully interconnected. This connectivity however has radically changed their threat landscape. Existing risk assessment methodologies often fail to identify various attack paths that stem from the new connectivity/functionality features of IoT-enabled CPS. Even worse, due to their inherent characteristics, IoT systems are usually the weakest link in the security chain and thus many attacks utilize IoT technologies as their key enabler. In this paper we review risk assessment methodologies for IoT-enabled CPS. In addition, based on our previous work (Stellios et al. in IEEE Commun Surv Tutor 20:3453–3495, 2018, [47]) on modeling IoT-enabled cyberattacks, we present a high-level risk assessment approach, specifically suited for IoT-enabled CPS. The mail goal is to enable an assessor to identify and assess non-obvious (indirect or subliminal) attack paths introduced by IoT technologies, that usually target mission critical components of an CPS.

Keywords

Internet of Things (IoT) Cyber Physical Systems (CPS) Risk assessment Attack paths Critical infrastructures 

References

  1. 1.
    H. Abie, I. Balasingham, Risk-based adaptive security for smart IoT in eHealth, in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Body Area Networks (ICST (Institute for Computer Sciences, Social-Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering), 2012), pp. 269–275Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    I. Agadakos, C.Y. Chen, M. Campanelli, P. Anantharaman, M. Hasan, B. Copos, T. Lepoint, M. Locasto, G.F. Ciocarlie, U. Lindqvist, Jumping the air gap: modeling cyber-physical attack paths in the internet-of-things, in Proceedings of the 2017 Workshop on Cyber-Physical Systems Security and Privacy (ACM, 2017), pp. 37–48Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Amin, G.A. Schwartz, A. Hussain, In quest of benchmarking security risks to cyber-physical systems. IEEE Netw. 27(1), 19–24 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    A.W. Atamli, A. Martin, Threat-based security analysis for the internet of things, in 2014 International Workshop on Secure Internet of Things (SIoT) (IEEE, 2014), pp. 35–43Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    H.F. Atlam, A. Alenezi, R.J. Walters, G.B. Wills, J. Daniel, Developing an adaptive risk-based access control model for the internet of things, in 2017 IEEE International Conference on Internet of Things (iThings) and IEEE Green Computing and Communications (GreenCom) and IEEE Cyber, Physical and Social Computing (CPSCom) and IEEE Smart Data (SmartData) (2017), pp. 655–661Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. Bormann, A.P. Castellani, Z. Shelby, CoAP: an application protocol for billions of tiny internet nodes. IEEE Internet Comput. 16(2), 62 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    A.A. Cárdenas, S. Amin, Z.S. Lin, Y.L. Huang, C.Y. Huang, S. Sastry, Attacks against process control systems: risk assessment, detection, and response, in Proceedings of the 6th ACM Symposium on Information, Computer and Communications Security (ACM, 2011), pp. 355–366Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. Cesar, A. Lucas, Hacking robots before Skynet (IOActive) (2017), https://ioactive.com/pdfs/Hacking-Robots-Before-Skynet.pdf
  9. 9.
    S. Cobb, 10 things to know about the October 21 IoT DDoS attacks (2016), http://www.welivesecurity.com/2016/10/24/10-things-know-october-21-iot-ddos-attacks/
  10. 10.
    S. Darwish, I. Nouretdinov, S.D. Wolthusen, Towards composable threat assessment for medical IoT (MIoT). Procedia Comput. Sci. 113, 627–632 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Depoy, J. Phelan, P. Sholander, B. Smith, G. Varnado, G. Wyss, Risk assessment for physical and cyber attacks on critical infrastructures, in Military Communications Conference, 2005. MILCOM 2005 (IEEE, 2005), pp. 1961–1969Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    B. Dorsemaine, J.P. Gaulier, J.P. Wary, N. Kheir, P. Urien, A new threat assessment method for integrating an IoT infrastructure in an information system, in 2017 IEEE 37th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops (ICDCSW) (IEEE, 2017), pp. 105–112Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P.M. Erdősi, The common vulnerability scoring system (CVSS) generations–usefulness and deficienciesGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Evans, P. Bond, A. Bement, FIPS PUB 199 standards for security categorization of federal information and information systems. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    N. Falliere, L.O. Murchu, E. Chien, W32. Stuxnet Dossier. White paper, Symantec Corporation. Secur. Response 5(6) (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Ge, J.B. Hong, W. Guttmann, D.S. Kim, A framework for automating security analysis of the internet of things. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 83, 12–27 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
    G. Hernandez, O. Arias, D. Buentello, Y. Jin, Smart nest thermostat: a smart spy in your home, in Black Hat USA (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Hong, D.S. Kim, HARMs: hierarchical attack representation models for network security analysis (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ISO: ISO/IEC 27005:2011 Information technology—security techniques—information security risk management. Technical report. International Standardization Organization (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    W. Knowles, D. Prince, D. Hutchison, J.F.P. Disso, K. Jones, A survey of cyber security management in industrial control systems. Int. J. Crit. Infrastruct. Prot. 9, 52–80 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    A. Kott, J. Ludwig, M. Lange, Assessing mission impact of cyberattacks: toward a model-driven paradigm. IEEE Secur. Priv. 5, 65–74 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Kott, C. Wang, R.F. Erbacher, Cyber Defense and Situational Awareness, vol. 62 (Springer, 2015)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    KrebsonSecurity, FBI: smart meter hacks likely to spread (2012), https://krebsonsecurity.com/2012/04/fbi-smart-meter-hacks-likely-to-spread/
  25. 25.
    D. Kushner, The real story of Stuxnet. IEEE Spectr. 50(3), 48–53 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    R.M. Lee, M.J. Assante, T. Conway, Analysis of the cyber attack on the Ukrainian power grid. SANS Industrial Control Systems (2016)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    C. Liu, Y. Zhang, J. Zeng, L. Peng, R. Chen, Research on dynamical security risk assessment for the internet of things inspired by immunology, in 2012 Eighth International Conference on Natural Computation (ICNC) (IEEE, 2012), pp. 874–878Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    F. Maggi, D. Quarta, M. Pogliani, M. Polino, A.M. Zanchettin, S. Zanero, Rogue robots: testing the limits of an industrial robots security. Technical report, Trend Micro, Politecnico di Milano (2017)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    L. Maglaras, M.A. Ferrag, A. Derhab, M. Mukherjee, H. Janicke, S. Rallis, Threats, countermeasures and attribution of cyber attacks on critical infrastructures. Secur. Saf. 5(16), 1–9 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.15-10-2018.155856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    L. Maglaras, M.A. Ferrag, A. Derhab, M. Mukherjee, H. Janicke, S. Rallis, Threats, protection and attribution of cyber attacks on critical infrastructures (2019), arXiv:1901.03899
  31. 31.
    E. Marin, D. Singelée, F.D. Garcia, T. Chothia, R. Willems, B. Preneel, On the (in)security of the latest generation implantable cardiac defibrillators and how to secure them, in Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference on Computer Security Applications (ACM, 2016), pp. 226–236Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    D. Martins, H. Guyennet, Wireless sensor network attacks and security mechanisms: a short survey, in 2010 13th International Conference on Network-Based Information Systems (NBiS) (IEEE, 2010), pp. 313–320Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    R. Neisse, G. Steri, I.N. Fovino, G. Baldini, SecKit: a model-based security toolkit for the internet of things. Comput. Secur. 54, 60–76 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    C.P. O’Flynn, Message denial and alteration on IEEE 802.15.4 low-power radio networks, in 2011 4th IFIP International Conference on New Technologies, Mobility and Security (NTMS) (IEEE, 2011), pp. 1–5Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Y. Peng, T. Lu, J. Liu, Y. Gao, X. Guo, F. Xie, Cyber-physical system risk assessment, in 2013 Ninth International Conference on Intelligent Information Hiding and Multimedia Signal Processing (IEEE, 2013), pp. 442–447Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    J. Petit, B. Stottelaar, M. Feiri, F. Kargl, Remote attacks on automated vehicles sensors: experiments on camera and Lidar, in Black Hat Europe, vol. 11 (2015), p. 2015Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    D. Quarta, M. Pogliani, M. Polino, F. Maggi, A.M. Zanchettin, S. Zanero, An experimental security analysis of an industrial robot controller, in 2017 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) (IEEE, 2017), pp. 268–286Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    P.A. Ralston, J.H. Graham, J.L. Hieb, Cyber security risk assessment for SCADA and DCS networks. ISA Trans. 46(4), 583–594 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    E. Ronen, C. O’Flynn, A. Shamir, A.O. Weingarten, IoT goes nuclear: creating a zigbee chain reaction. IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch. 2016, 1047 (2016)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    E. Ronen, A. Shamir, Extended functionality attacks on IoT devices: the case of smart lights, in 2016 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P) (IEEE, 2016), pp. 3–12Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    R.S. Ross, NIST SP-800-39 Managing Information Security Risk–Organization, Mission, and Information System View. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg (2011)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    R.S. Ross, NIST SP-800-30rev1 Guide for conducting risk assessments. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg (2012)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    R.A. Sahner, K. Trivedi, A. Puliafito, Performance and Reliability Analysis of Computer Systems: An Example-based Approach Using the SHARPE Software Package (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    R. Santamarta, In flight hacking system (IOActive Research Labs) (2016), http://blog.ioactive.com/2016/12/in-flight-hacking-system.html
  45. 45.
    Z. Shelby, C. Bormann, 6LoWPAN: The Wireless Embedded Internet, vol. 43 (Wiley, 2011)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    R. Spenneberg, M. Brüggemann, H. Schwartke, PLC-blaster: a worm living solely in the PLC, in Black Hat Asia, Marina Bay Sands, Singapore (2016)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    I. Stellios, P. Kotzanikolaou, M. Psarakis, C. Alcaraz, J. Lopez, A survey of IoT-enabled cyberattacks: assessing attack paths to critical infrastructures and services. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 20(4), 3453–3495 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    TrapX Research, Labs: Anatomy of Attack: MEDJACK.2—Hospitals Under Siege. TrapX Investigative Report (2016)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wikileaks: Vault 7: CIA Hacking Tools Revealed—CIA malware targets iPhone, Android, smart TVs (2017), https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/
  50. 50.
    C. Yan, X. Wenyuan, J. Liu, Can you trust autonomous vehicles: contactless attacks against sensors of self-driving vehicle, in DEF CON (2016)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    S.E. Yusuf, M. Ge, J.B. Hong, H.K. Kim, P. Kim, D.S. Kim, Security modelling and analysis of dynamic enterprise networks, in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Computer and Information Technology (CIT) (IEEE, 2016), pp. 249–256Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ioannis Stellios
    • 1
  • Panayiotis Kotzanikolaou
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mihalis Psarakis
    • 2
  • Cristina Alcaraz
    • 3
  1. 1.SecLab, Department of InformaticsUniversity of PiraeusPireasGreece
  2. 2.ESLab, Department of InformaticsUniversity of PiraeusPireasGreece
  3. 3.Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of MalagaMálagaSpain

Personalised recommendations