skip to main content
research-article

Watching and Safeguarding Your 3D Printer: Online Process Monitoring Against Cyber-Physical Attacks

Authors Info & Claims
Published:18 September 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The increasing adoption of 3D printing in many safety and mission critical applications exposes 3D printers to a variety of cyber attacks that may result in catastrophic consequences if the printing process is compromised. For example, the mechanical properties (e.g., physical strength, thermal resistance, dimensional stability) of 3D printed objects could be significantly affected and degraded if a simple printing setting is maliciously changed. To address this challenge, this study proposes a model-free real-time online process monitoring approach that is capable of detecting and defending against the cyber-physical attacks on the firmwares of 3D printers. Specifically, we explore the potential attacks and consequences of four key printing attributes (including infill path, printing speed, layer thickness, and fan speed) and then formulate the attack models. Based on the intrinsic relation between the printing attributes and the physical observations, our defense model is established by systematically analyzing the multi-faceted, real-time measurement collected from the accelerometer, magnetometer and camera. The Kalman filter and Canny filter are used to map and estimate three aforementioned critical toolpath information that might affect the printing quality. Mel-frequency Cepstrum Coefficients are used to extract features for fan speed estimation. Experimental results show that, for a complex 3D printed design, our method can achieve 4% Hausdorff distance compared with the model dimension for infill path estimate, 6.07% Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) for speed estimate, 9.57% MAPE for layer thickness estimate, and 96.8% accuracy for fan speed identification. Our study demonstrates that, this new approach can effectively defend against the cyber-physical attacks on 3D printers and 3D printing process.

References

  1. O. Akyol and Z. Duran. 2014. Low-cost laser scanning system design. Journal of Russian Laser Research 35, 3 (May 2014), 244--251.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. S. Amin, X. Litrico, S. Sastry, and A.M. Bayen. 2013. Cyber security of Water SCADA systems --- Part I analysis and experimentation of stealthy deception attacks. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology 21, 5 (2013), 1963--1970.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. G. C. Anzalone, C. Zhang, B. Wijnen, P. G. Sanders, and J. M. Pearce. 2013. A Low-cost opensource metal 3-D printer. IEEE Access 1 (Dec. 2013), 803--810.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. M. Baker and J. Manweiler. 2014. From 3D printing to spy cats. IEEE Pervasive Computing 13, 4 (2014), 6--9.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Rafael Ballagas, Sarthak Ghosh, and James Landay. 2018. The design space of 3D printable interactivity. Proceedings of ACM Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 2, 2, Article 61 (July 2018), 21 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. C. Bayens, T. Le, L. Garcia, R. Beyah, M. Javanmard, and S. Zonouz. 2017. See no evil, hear no evil, feel no evil, print no evil? Malicious fill patterns detection in additive manufacturing. In Proceedings of the 26th USENIX Security Symposium. 1181--1198. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Abdelkareem Bedri, Richard Li, Malcolm Haynes, Raj Prateek Kosaraju, Ishaan Grover, Temiloluwa Prioleau, Min Yan Beh, Mayank Goel, Thad Starner, and Gregory Abowd. 2017. EarBit: Using wearable sensors to detect eating episodes in unconstrained environments. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 1, 3 (2017), 37. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. S. Belikovetsky, M. Yampolskiy, J. Toh, and Y. Elovici. 2016. dr0wned-cyber-physical attack with additive manufacturing. arXiv preprint: 1609.00133 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. J. T. Belter and A. M. Dollar. 2015. Strengthening of 3D printed fused deposition manufactured parts using the fill compositing technique. PLOS One (2015), 1--19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. S. M. Bridges, K. Keiser, N. Sissom, and S. J. Graves. 2015. Cyber security for additive manufacturing. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual Cyber and Information Security Research Conference (CISR). ACM, 1--3. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. C. Byung-Chul, L. Seoung-Hyeon, N. Jung-Chan, and L. Jong-Hyouk. 2016. Secure firmware validation and update for consumer devices in home networking. IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics 62, 1 (2016), 39--44.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. J. Canny. 1986. A computational approach to edge detection. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 6 (1986), 679--698. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. S. R. Chhetri, A. Canedo, and M. A. Al Faruque. 2016. KCAD: Kinetic cyber attack detection method for cyber-physical additive manufacturing systems. In Procedings of the 35th International Conference On Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD). ACM, 74. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Jiska Classen, Daniel Wegemer, Paul Patras, Tom Spink, and Matthias Hollick. 2018. Anatomy of a vulnerable fitness tracking system: dissecting the fitbit cloud, App, and firmware. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 2, 1 (2018), 5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. A. Cui, M. Costello, and S.J. Stolfo. 2013. When firmware modifications attack: a case study of embedded exploitation. In Proceedings of the 20th Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS'13). 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Q. Do, B. Martini, and K.K.R. Choo. 2016. A data exfiltration and remote exploitation attack on consumer 3D printers. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 11, 10 (2016), 2174--2186.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. S. K. Everton, M. Hirsch, P. Stravroulakis, R. K. Leach, and A. T. Clare. 2016. Review of in-situ process monitoring and in-situ metrology for metal additive manufacturing. Materials 8 Design 95 (2016), 431--445.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Petko Georgiev, Sourav Bhattacharya, Nicholas D Lane, and Cecilia Mascolo. 2017. Low-resource multitask audio sensing for mobile and embedded devices via shared deep neural network representations. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 1, 3 (2017), 50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. F. Goldenberg. 2006. Geomagnetic navigation beyond the magnetic compass. In Proceedings of Position, Location, And Navigation Symposium (PLANS). IEEE, 684--694.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. B. Gozick, K. P. Subbu, R. Dantu, and T. Maeshiro. 2011. Magnetic maps for indoor navigation. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 60, 12 (2011), 3883--3891.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Andreas Grammenos, Cecilia Mascolo, and Jon Crowcroft. 2018. You are sensing, but are you biased?: A user unaided sensor calibration approach for mobile sensing. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 2, 1 (2018), 11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. T. Greene. 2016. U.S. 3D Printer Forecast, 2016--2020: New 3D Print/Additive Manufacturing Technologies Fuel Growth. Technical Report US41333516. IDC Research, Inc., Framingham, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. M. Gross. 2013. Creating the magic with information technology. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp). 1--2. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. A. Hojjati, A. Adhikari, K. Struckmann, E. Chou, T.N. Tho Nguyen, K. Madan, M.S. Winslett, C.A. Gunter, and W.P. King. 2016. Leave your phone at the door: Side channels that reveal factory floor secrets. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS). ACM, 883--894. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. J. Hong and M. Baker. 2014. 3D Printing, Smart Cities, Robots, and More. IEEE Pervasive Computing 13, 1 (2014), 6--9. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. J. U. Hou, D. G. Kim, and H. K. Lee. 2017. Blind 3D mesh watermarking for 3D printed model by analyzing layering artifact. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 12, 11 (Nov. 2017), 2712--2725.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. D. P. Huttenlocher, G. A. Klanderman, and W.J. Rucklidge. 1993. Comparing images using the Hausdorff distance. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 15, 9 (1993), 850--863. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. R. Jones, P. Haufe, E. Sells, P. Iravani, V. Olliver, C. Palmer, and A. Bowyer. 2011. RepRap - the replicating rapid prototyper. Robotica 29, 1 (January 2011), 177--191. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. J. P. Kruth, M. C. Leu, and T. Nakagawa. 1998. Progress in additive manufacturing and rapid prototyping. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology 47, 2 (1998), 525--540.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. A. Liptak. 2017. The US Navy 3D printed a concept submersible in four weeks. https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/29/16062608/us-navy-3d-printing-submersible-manufacturing-military. (July 29 2017). {Online; accessed 20-July-2018}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. J. Mireles, C. Terrazas, F. Medina, R. Wicker, and E. Paso. 2013. Automatic feedback control in electron beam melting using infrared thermography. In Proceedings of the Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Mark Mirtchouk, Drew Lustig, Alexandra Smith, Ivan Ching, Min Zheng, and Samantha Kleinberg. 2017. Recognizing eating from body-Worn sensors: combining free-living and laboratory data. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 1, 3 (2017), 85. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. S. B. Moore, W. B. Glisson, and M. Yampolskiy. 2017. Implications of malicious 3D printer firmware. In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. S. Mueller. 2018. Toward direct manipulation for personal fabrication. IEEE Pervasive Computing 17, 1 (Jan 2018), 75--81. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. K. Nomizu and T. Sasaki. 1994. Affine differential geometry: geometry of affine immersions. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Kazuya Ohara, Takuya Maekawa, and Yasuyuki Matsushita. 2017. Detecting state changes of indoor everyday objects using Wi-Fi channel state information. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 1, 3 (2017), 88. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. J. M. Pearce, C. M. Blair, K. J. Laciak, R. Andrews, A. Nosrat, and I. Zelenika-Zovko. 2010. 3D printing of open source appropriate technologies for self-directed sustainable development. J. Sustain. Development 3, 4 (2010), 17--29.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. P. K. Rao, J. P. Liu, D. Roberson, Z. J. Kong, and C. Williams. 2015. Online real-time quality monitoring in additive manufacturing processes using heterogeneous sensors. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering 137, 6 (2015), 061007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. GE Global Research. 2016. 3D printing creates new parts for aircraft engines. http://www.geglobalresearch.com/innovation/3d-printing-creates-new-parts-aircraft-engines/. (2016). {Online; accessed 1-August-2017}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. A. Schmidt, T. Döring, and A. Sylvester. 2011. Changing how we make and deliver smart devices: when can I print out my new phone? IEEE Pervasive Computing 10, 4 (2011), 6--9. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. D. M. Shila, P. Geng, and T. Lovett. 2016. I can detect you: Using intrusion checkers to resist malicious firmware attacks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Technologies for Homeland Security (HST). IEEE, 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Chen Song, Zhengxiong Li, Wenyao Xu, Chi Zhou, Zhanpeng Jin, and Kui Ren. 2018. My smartphone recognizes genuine QR codes!: Practical unclonable QR code via 3D printing. Proceedings of ACM Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 2, 2, Article 83 (July 2018), 20 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Chen Song, Feng Lin, Zhongjie Ba, Kui Ren, Chi Zhou, and Wenyao Xu. 2016. My smartphone knows what you print: Exploring smartphone-based side-channel attacks against 3D printers. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, 895--907. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. SpaceX. 2014. SpaceX lauches 3D-printed part to space, creates printed engine chamber. http://www.spacex.com/news/2014/07/31/spacex-launches-3d-printed-part-space-creates-printed-engine-chamber-crewed/. (2014). {Online; accessed 20-July-2018}.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. J. Straub. 2017. 3D printing cybersecurity: detecting and preventing attacks that seek to weaken a printed object by changing fill level. In Proceedings of SPIE, Dimensional Optical Metrology and Inspection for Practical Appl. VI, Vol. 10220. 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. J. Straub. 2017. An approach to detecting deliberately introduced defects and micro-defects in 3D printed objects. In Proceedings of SPIE, Pattern Recognition and Tracking XXVIII, Vol. 10203. 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. J. Straub. 2017. A combined system for 3D printing cybersecurity. In Proceedings of SPIE, Dimensional Optical Metrology and Inspection for Practical Appl. VI, Vol. 10220. 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. J. Straub. 2017. Identifying positioning-based attacks against 3D printed objects and the 3D printing process. In Proceedings of SPIE, Pattern Recognition and Tracking XXVIII, Vol. 10203. 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. J. Straub. 2017. Physical security and cyber security issues and human error prevention for 3D printed objects: detecting the use of an incorrect printing material. In Proceedings of SPIE, Dimensional Optical Metrology and Inspection for Practical Appl. VI, Vol. 10220. 1--16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. L. D. Sturm, C. B. Williams, J. A. Camelio, J. White, and R. Parker. 2014. Cyber-physical vulnerabilities in additive manufacturing systems. Context 7, 2014 (2014), 951--963.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. L. D. Sturm, C. B. Williams, J. A. Camelio, J. White, and R. Parker. 2017. Cyber-physical vulnerabilities in additive manufacturing systems: A case study attack on the .STL file with human subjects. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 44, 1 (2017), 154--164.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. H. Turner, J. White, J. A. Camelio, C. Williams, B. Amos, and R. Parker. 2015. Bad parts: Are our manufacturing systems at risk of silent cyberattacks? IEEE Security 8 Privacy 13, 3 (2015), 40--47.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. L. G. Valiant. 1979. The complexity of computing the permanent. Theoretical Computer Science 8, 2 (1979), 189--201.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. H. Vincent, L. Wells, P. Tarazaga, and J. Camelio. 2015. Trojan detection and side-channel analyses for cybersecurity in cyber-physical manufacturing systems. Procedia Manufacturing 1 (2015), 77--85.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Chuyu Wang, Jian Liu, Yingying Chen, Lei Xie, Hong Bo Liu, and Sanclu Lu. 2018. RF-Kinect: A wearable RFID-based approach towards 3D body movement tracking. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 2, 1 (2018), 41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. L. J. Wells, J. A. Camelio, C. B. Williams, and J. White. 2014. Cyber-physical security challenges in manufacturing systems. Manufacturing Letters 2, 2 (2014), 74--77.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. R. Whited. 2017. Failure Analysis of 3D Printed Parts. Technical Report KSC-E-DAA-TN41114. NASA Kennedy Space Center, Cocoa Beach, FL.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. T. T. Wohlers and T. Caffrey. 2016. Wohlers Report 2016: 3D printing and additive manufacturing state of the industry annual worldwide progress report. Wohlers Associates.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. M. Wu, Z. Song, and Y. B. Moon. 2017. Detecting cyber-physical attacks in CyberManufacturing systems with machine learning methods. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2017), 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. M. Yampolskiy, T. R. Andel, J. T. McDonald, W. B. Glisson, and A. Yasinsac. 2014. Intellectual property protection in additive layer manufacturing: Requirements for secure outsourcing. In Proceedings of the 4th Program Protection and Reverse Engineering Workshop. ACM, 7. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Mark Yampolskiy, Peter Horvath, Xenofon D Koutsoukos, Yuan Xue, and Janos Sztipanovits. 2012. Systematic analysis of cyberattacks on CPS-evaluating applicability of DFD-based approach. In Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Resilient Control Systems (ISRCS). IEEE, 55--62.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. M. Yampolskiy, A Skjellum, M Kretzschmar, R. A. Overfeit, K. R. Sloan, and A. Yasinsac. 2016. Using 3D printers as weapons. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection 14 (2016), 58--71. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. L. Yang, K. Hsu, B. Baughman, D. Godfrey, F. Medina, M. Menon, and S. Wiener. 2017. Additive manufacturing of metals: the technology, materials, design and production. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. S. E. Zeltmann, N. Gupta, N. G. Tsoutsos, M. Maniatakos, J. Rajendran, and R. Karri. 2016. Manufacturing and security challenges in 3D printing. JOM 68, 7 (July 2016), 1872--1881.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Watching and Safeguarding Your 3D Printer: Online Process Monitoring Against Cyber-Physical Attacks

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          Full Access

          • Published in

            cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies
            Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies  Volume 2, Issue 3
            September 2018
            1536 pages
            EISSN:2474-9567
            DOI:10.1145/3279953
            Issue’s Table of Contents

            Copyright © 2018 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 18 September 2018
            • Accepted: 1 September 2018
            • Revised: 1 July 2018
            • Received: 1 February 2018
            Published in imwut Volume 2, Issue 3

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader