Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

System Assurance in the Design of Resilient Cyber-Physical Systems

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Design Automation of Cyber-Physical Systems

Abstract

System assurance is the justified confidence that a system functions as intended and is free of exploitable vulnerabilities, either intentionally or unintentionally designed or inserted as part of the system at any time during the life cycle. The computation and communication backbone of cyber-physical systems (CPS), coupled with readily available technological advances, makes them vulnerable to classes of threats previously not relevant for many physical control and computational systems. The design of resilient CPS encompasses not only the increasingly new ways in which these systems are vulnerable to adversarial disruption (security) but also how these systems behave in an operational environment and with each other given increasing levels of autonomy and self-learning (function), as well as increasing interdependencies (net-centric connectedness). As CPS are interconnected, the concept of system trust reflects the extent to which one system’s assurance is dependent on another system’s assurance; in other words, the acceptance of that dependence implies trust between the two. System assurance can be met only through a comprehensive and aggressive systems engineering approach that encompasses the following three critical dimensions: (1) the structure of systems, including architecture and accounting for various kinds of dynamism for the purpose of resiliency and autonomy, (2) the process and engineering activities by which systems are constructed, evolved, and sustained, including mechanisms for measurement of critical attributes and management of alternatives and commitments, and (3) the supporting models and techniques through which evidence can be created to support assurance judgments.

This chapter discusses historical and emerging methods for evaluation and design of system assurance pertaining to CPS. Current assurance methods and tools are all 40–65 years old, while the technology and system compositions are very different today. There is a recognition of the need for new tools that address the inherent complications of today’s complex interconnected systems. The chapter provides context by reviewing traditional system assurance practices, their benefits and shortfalls, and obviating the need for new practices in an era of emerging complexity and risk of cyber attacks. The chapter then discusses how assurance practices can be improved using new design strategies that rely on both functional and formal design methods.

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 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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

  1. NSF. (2013). Cyber-physical systems. National Science Foundation (NSF) program solicitation 16-549, NSF document number nsf16549, March 4, 2016. [online] Retrieved June 1, 2017, from https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf16549

  2. NIST. (2016). National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) Framework for Cyber-Physical Systems Release 1.0: Cyber Physical Systems Public Working Group (Rep.). May 2016. Retrieved June 1, 2017, from https://pages.nist.gov/cpspwg/

  3. Griffor, E. (Ed.). (2016). Handbook of system safety and security: Cyber risk and risk management, cyber security, adversary modeling, threat analysis, business of safety, functional safety, software systems, and cyber physical systems. Cambridge, MA: Syngress.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Avižienis, A., Laprie, J., Randell, B., & Landwehr, C. (2004). Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 1(1), 11–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. DoDI. (2014). Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 8500.01, Cybersecurity. March 14, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Reed, M. (2016). DoD Strategy for Cyber Resilient Weapon Systems. In Paper presented at the National Defense Industries Association, Annual Systems Engineering Conference, Alexandria VA, October 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Boehm, B., & Kukreja, N. (2015). An initial ontology for system qualities. INCOSE International Symposium, 25(1), 341–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Newman, M., Barabasi, A., & Watts, D. (2011). The structure and dynamics of networks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Geard, N. (2010). In T. Gross & H. Sayama (Eds.), Adaptive networks: Theory, models and applications. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  10. NATO. (2010). North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), engineering for system assurance in NATO programs. Washington, DC: NATO Standardization Agency. DoD 5220.22M-NISPOM-NATO-AEP-67, February 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hilburn, T., Ardis, M., Johnson, G., Kornecki, A., & Mead, N. (2013). Software assurance competency model. Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University. Technical Note CMU/SEI-2013-TN-004, 2013. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from http://resources.sei.cmu.edu/library/asset-view.cfm?AssetID=47953

  12. McDermott, T., & Horowitz, B. (2017). Human Capital Development – Resilient Cyber Physical Systems. Systems Engineering Research Center (SERC) Technical Report SERC-2017-TR-075, September 29, 2017. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from https://sercuarc.org/publication/?id=163&pub-type=Technical-Report&publication=SERC-2017-TR-113-Human+Capital+Development+%E2%80%93+Resilient+Cyber+Physical+Systems

  13. Wan, J., Canedo, A., & Al Faruque, M. (2015). Security-aware functional modeling of cyber-physical systems. In 2015 IEEE 20th International Conference on Emerging Technology & Factory Automation (ETFA) 2015 (pp. 1–4).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rashid, N., Wan, J., Quiros, G., Canedo, A., & Al Faruque, M. (2017). Modeling and simulation of cyberattacks for resilient cyber-physical systems. In 13th IEEE Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE) 2017 (pp. 988–993).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Benner, L. (1975). Accident investigations: Multilinear events sequencing methods. Journal of Safety Research, 7(2), 67–73. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Leveson, N. (2012). Engineering a safer world: Systems thinking applied to safety (p. 13). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Goldman, H. (2010, November). Building secure, resilient architectures for cyber mission assurance. McLean, VA: The MITRE Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Young, W., & Leveson, N. (2013). Systems thinking for safety and security. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC ’13) (pp. 1–8). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lu, Y., Ferrese, F., & Labouliere, M. (2007) Anti-threat mobile agent-based ship freshwater cooling system. In Automation & Controls Symposium.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lu, Y., Kuruganty, R., Al Faruque, M. A., Ren, Q., Zhang, W., & Scheidt, P. R. D. (2012). Risk based multi-agent chilled water control system for a more survivable naval ship. International Journal of Intelligent Control and Systems, 17(4), 102–112. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hirtz, J., Stone, R. B., Szykman, S., McAdams, D. A., & Wood, K. L. (2001). Evolving a functional basis for engineering design. In Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference: DETC2001, Pittsburgh, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hirtz, J., Stone, R., McAdams, D., Szykman, S., & Wood, K. L. (2002). A functional basis for engineering design: Reconciling and evolving previous efforts. Research in Engineering Design, 13, 65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-001-0008-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wan, J., Canedo, A., & Al Faruque, M. (2014, December). Functional model-based design methodology for automotive cyber-physical systems. IEEE Systems Journal, 11(4), 2028–2039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wan, J., Canedo, A., & Al Faruque, M. (2015). Cyber-physical co-design at the functional-level for multi-domain automotive systems. IEEE Systems Journal, 11(4), 2949–2959.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Friedenthal, S., Moore, A., & Steiner, R. (2014). A practical guide to SysML: The systems modeling language. Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kruse, B., Gilz, T., Shea, K., & Eigner, M. (2014). Systematic comparison of functional models in SysML for design library evaluation. Procedia CIRP, 21, 34–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Weilkiens, T. (2011). Systems engineering with SysML/UML: Modeling, analysis, design. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Li, L. (2007). Topologies of complex networks: Functions and structures. Pasadena, CA: California Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Baresi, L., & Heckel, R. (2002). Tutorial introduction to graph transformation: A software engineering perspective. In International Conference on Graph Transformation. Berlin: Springer.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Ehrig, H., Rozenberg, G., & Kreowski, H. (1999). Handbook of graph grammars and computing by graph transformation (Vol. 3). London: World Scientific.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Karsai, G., Agrawal, A., Shi, F., & Sprinkle, J. (2003). On the use of graph transformation in the formal specification of model interpreters. J. UCS, 9(11), 1296–1321.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Plasmeijer, R., Van Eekelen, M., & Plasmeijer, M. (1993). Functional programming and parallel graph rewriting (Vol. 857). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Manadhata, P., Tan, K. M., Maxion, R. A., & Wing, J. M. (2007). An approach to measuring a system’s attack surface. No. CMU-CS-07-146. Pittsburg, PA: Carnegie-Mellon University, School of Computer Science.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  34. Sheyner, O., Haines, J., Jha, S., Lippmann, R., & Wing, J. (2002). Automated generation and analysis of attack graphs. In Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP ’02). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Apvrille, L., & Roudier, Y. (2015). SysML-sec attack graphs: Compact representations for complex attacks. In International Workshop on Graphical Models for Security. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Luckett, B. (2013). Integration of graphical modeling techniques as a structural framework for system-aware cyber security architecture selection. Thesis from http://libra.virginia.edu/catalog/libra-oa:3720

  37. Aguilar, J. (2009, June 4). Design assurance guide. aerospace.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/TOR-20098591-11-Design-Assurance-Guide.pdf. Accessed online via DTIC, 12 Nov 2018.

  38. Caslake, S. (1974). Quality assurance. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 21(1), 1974. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.1974.4327589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rachowitz, B., Maue, R. K., Angrisano, N. P., & Abramson, B. (1991). A guide to engineering workstations: Using workstations efficiently. IEEE Spectrum, 28(4), 38–40. https://doi.org/10.1109/6.76301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Alberts, C, Ellison, R, & Woody, C (2009). Cyber assurance. 2009 CERT Research Report. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University. Available at http://resources.sei.cmu.edu/library/asset-view.cfm?assetid=77638

  41. Brooks, T. (2018). Cyber-assurance for the internet of things. New York: Wiley. Accessed 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Wolf, M., & Dimitrios, S. (2018). Safety and security in cyber-physical systems and internet-of-things systems. Proceedings of the IEEE, 106(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2017.2781198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Pothon, F. (2012). DO-178C/ED-12C versus DO-178B/ED-12B Changes and Improvements. www.adacore.com/uploads/books/pdf/DO178C-ED12C-Changes_and_Improvements-Sep2012.pdf. Report generated from ACG Solution on the new update to the standards.

  44. Nakajima, S., Talpin, J. P., Toyoshima, M., & Yu, H. (Eds.). (2018). Cyber-physical system design from an architecture analysis viewpoint: Communications of NII Shonan meetings (Vol. 2017). Singapore: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Mitsch, S., & Platzer, A. (2016). Modelplex: Verified runtime validation of verified cyber-physical system models. Formal Methods in System Design, 49(1–2), 33–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10703-016-0241-z.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. Sedjelmaci, H., Senouci, S. M., & Ansari, N. (2018). A hierarchical detection and response system to enhance security against lethal cyber attacks in UAV networks. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man & Cybernetics. Systems, 48(9), 1594–1606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Brissaud, F., Barros, A., Be’renguer, C., & Charpentier, D. (2009). Reliability study of an intelligent transmitter. In 15th IS- SAT International Conference on Reliability and Quality in Design. (pp. 224–233). International Society of Science and Applied Technologies.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Modarres, M., & Cheon, S. (1999). Function-centered modeling of engineering systems using the goal tree–success tree technique and functional primitives. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 64(2), 181–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Sabaliauskaite, G., & Adepu, S. (2017). Integrating six-step model with information flow diagrams for comprehensive analysis of cyber-physical system safety and security. In Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on High Assurance Systems Engineering (pp. 41–48). https://doi.org/10.1109/HASE.2017.25.

  50. Akella, R., Tang, H., & McMillin, B. (2010). Analysis of information flow security in cyber-physical systems. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, 3(3–4), 157–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Hasuo, I. (2017). Metamathematics for systems design: Comprehensive transfer of formal methods techniques to cyber-physical systems. New Generation Computing, 1-35, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00354-017-0023-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Bliudze, S., Furic, S., Sifakis, J., & Viel, A. (2017). Rigorous design of cyber-physical systems. Software & Systems Modeling, 2(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-017-0642-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ, USA

    Thomas A. McDermott & Megan M. Clifford

  2. Siemens Corporate Technology, Princeton, NJ, USA

    Arquimedes Canedo & Gustavo Quirós

  3. Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Valerie B. Sitterle

Authors
  1. Thomas A. McDermott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arquimedes Canedo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Megan M. Clifford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gustavo Quirós
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Valerie B. Sitterle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas A. McDermott .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA

    Mohammad Abdullah Al Faruque

  2. Siemens Corporate Technology, Princeton, NJ, USA

    Arquimedes Canedo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

McDermott, T.A., Canedo, A., Clifford, M.M., Quirós, G., Sitterle, V.B. (2019). System Assurance in the Design of Resilient Cyber-Physical Systems. In: Al Faruque, M., Canedo, A. (eds) Design Automation of Cyber-Physical Systems. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13050-3_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13050-3_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-13049-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-13050-3

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation