Abstract
In this chapter, we discuss a deception game where attackers and defenders can have different perceptions towards a given situation. Although existing game theories have considered incomplete information to consider uncertainty, how players’ different perceptions or misperceptions can affect their decision-making has not been fully addressed. In particular, we discuss hypergame theory which has been used to resolve conflicts under uncertainty. In this chapter, we examine how a player’s perception (or misperception) affects their decision-making in choosing a best strategy based on hypergame theory. To deliver a concrete idea on how the attack–defense game can be modeled based on hypergame theory, we model a simple cybergame scenario and demonstrate an example probability model using Stochastic Petri Nets. Through the evaluation of the model, we show the experimental results to deliver insightful findings in terms of the relationships between perceptions by different players (i.e., an attacker or a defender), their chosen best strategies, and corresponding utilities. Lastly, we measure performance of the attacker and the defender in terms of attack success probability and mean time to security failure.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Change history
01 February 2020
This book was inadvertently published as an authored work with the chapter authors mentioned in the footnotes of the chapter opening pages. This has now been updated and the chapter authors have been mentioned in the respective chapter opening pages as mentioned below:
References
Abass AAA, Xiao L, Mandayam NB, Gajic Z (2017) Evolutionary game theoretic analysis of advanced persistent threats against cloud storage. IEEE Access 5:8482–8491
Aljefri YM, Bashar MA, Fang L, Hipel KW (2017) First-level hypergame for investigating misperception in conflicts. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems PP(99):1–18
Almeshekah MH, Spafford EH (2016) Cyber security deception. In: Cyber Deception - Building the Scientific Foundation, Springer, pp 25–52
Bell JB, Whaley B (1991) Cheating and Deception. Transaction Publishers
Bennett P (1977) Toward a theory of hypergames. Omega 5(6):749–751
Caddell JW (2004) Deception 101-primer on deception. Tech. rep., DTIC Document
Carroll TE, Grosu D (2011) A game theoretic investigation of deception in network security. Security and Communication Networks 4(10):1162–1172
Chen P, Desmet L, Huygens C (2014) A study on Advanced Persistent Threats. In: Proceedings of the IFIP International Conference on Communications and Multimedia Security, Springer, pp 63–72
Cho JH, Wang Y, Chen IR, Chan KS, Swami A (2017) A survey on modeling and optimizing multi-objective systems. IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials 19(3):1867–1901
Daniel DC, Herbig KL (1982) Strategic Military Deception. Pergamon
Fang X, Zhai L, Jia Z, Bai W (2014) A game model for predicting the attack path of apt. In: 2014 IEEE 12th International Conference on Dependable, Autonomic and Secure Computing (DASC), IEEE, pp 491–495
Feng X, Zheng Z, Hu P, Cansever D, Mohapatra P (2015) Stealthy attacks meets insider threats: a three-player game model. In: IEEE Military Communications Conference (MILCOM 2015), IEEE, pp 25–30
Fraser NM, Hipel KW (1984) Conflict Analysis: Models and Resolutions, North-Holland Series in System Science and Engineering, vol 2. A. P. Sage, North-Holland
Gaertner FC (2003) Byzantine failures and security: Arbitrary is not (always) random. Tech. rep., EPFL
Garg N, Grosu D (2007) Deception in honeynets: A game-theoretic analysis. In: IEEE SMC Information Assurance and Security Workshop (IAW’07), IEEE, pp 107–113
Gharesifard B, Cortés J (2010) Evolution of the perception about the opponent in hypergames. In: Proceedings of the 49th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp 1076–1081
Gharesifard B, Cortés J (2012) Evolution of players’ misperceptions in hypergames under perfect observations. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 57(7):1627–1640
House JT, Cybenko G (2010) Hypergame theory applied to cyber attack and defense. In: Proceedings of the SPIE Conference on Sensors, and Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (C3I) Technologies for Homeland Security and Homeland Defense IX, vol 766604
Hu P, Li H, Fu H, Cansever D, Mohapatra P (2015) Dynamic defense strategy against advanced persistent threat with insiders. In: 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM), IEEE, pp 747–755
Kanazawa T, Ushio T, Yamasaki T (2007) Replicator dynamics of evolutionary hypergames. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans 37(1):132–138
Kovach NS, Gibson AS, Lamont GB (2015) Hypergame theory: A model for conflict, misperception, and deception. Game Theory 2015:Article ID 570639, 20 pages
Okhravi H, Rabe MA, Leonard WG, Hobson TR, Bigelow D, Streilein WW (2013) Survey of cyber moving targets. Tech. Rep. 1166, Lexington Lincoln Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Putro US, Kijima K, Takahashi S (2000) Adaptive learning of hypergame situations using a genetic algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans 30(5):562–572
Rass S, König S, Schauer S (2017) Defending against advanced persistent threats using game-theory. PloS one 12(1):e0168675
Sasaki Y (2014) Subjective rationalizability in hypergames. Advances in Decision Sciences 2014(Article ID 263615):7 pages
Sharp WL (2006) Military deception. Tech. rep., joint Publication 3-13.4
Tadelis S (2013) Game Theory: An Introduction. Princeton University Press
Van Dijk M, Juels A, Oprea A, Rivest RL (2013) Flipit: The game of “stealthy takeover”. Journal of Cryptology 26(4):655–713
Vane R (2006) Advances in hypergame theory. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Game-Theoretic and Decision Theoretic Agents, Hakodate, Japan
Vane RR (2000) Hypergame Theory for DTGT Agents. American Association for Artificial Intelligence
Vane RR (2005) Planning for terrorist-caused emergencies. In: Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference
Vane RR, Lehner PE (1999) Using hypergames to select plans in adversarial environments. In: Parsons S, Wooldridge MJ (eds) Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Game Theoretic and Decision Theoretic Agents, pp 103–111
Yin Y, An B, Vorobeychik Y, Zhuang J (2013) Optimal deceptive strategies in security games: A preliminary study. In: Proc. of AAAI
Zhang M, Zheng Z, Shroff NB (2015) A game theoretic model for defending against stealthy attacks with limited resources. In: International Conference on Decision and Game Theory for Security, Springer, pp 93–112
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cho, JH., Zhu, M., Singh, M. (2019). Modeling and Analysis of Deception Games Based on Hypergame Theory. In: Al-Shaer, E., Wei, J., Hamlen, K., Wang, C. (eds) Autonomous Cyber Deception. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02110-8_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02110-8_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-02109-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-02110-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)