skip to main content
10.1145/3560826.3563383acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

CloudPAD: Managed Anomaly Detection for ICS

Published:07 November 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Modern attacks on Industrial Control Systems (ICSs) are the result of several colliding circumstances: historically insecure communication protocols, increased ICS connectivity, and the rise of state-sponsored attackers. Extensive research has been conducted on using anomaly detection (AD) to counter this; here, deviations from an ICS's normal operation are monitored to indicate potentially dangerous situations. However, most works either assume an on-site deployment, or focus only on the neural architecture and disregard the deployment environment altogether. For the former, failure to update local AD can result in otherwise preventable attacks going undetected; as for the latter, directly porting these architectures to a cloud deployment can result in stale predictions due to communication delays, timeout-induced gaps in predictions, and surcharges due to bandwidth costs. In this work, we presentCloudPAD, an ICS anomaly detection pipeline that accounts for the issues introduced by an off-premises deployment, which uses theClozeLSTM ---a neural network based on the Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) architecture---to detect anomalies. We train and test theClozeLSTM on the Secure Water Treatment (SWaT) dataset, and show that it outperforms an advanced attention baseline, with a precision-recall AUC of 0.797 vs. 0.717. We also discuss measures to minimizeCloudPAD 's bandwidth consumption, and show that performance remains competitive with a maximum decrease in PR AUC by 0.01 when running in this mode.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

CPSIoTSec22-cpsiot710s.mp4

mp4

30.8 MB

References

  1. REFERENCES [1] Simon Duque Anton, Daniel Fraunholz, Christoph Lipps, Frederic Pohl, Marc Zimmermann, and Hans D Schotten. 2017. Two decades of SCADA exploitation: A brief history. In 2017 IEEE Conf. Appl. Inf. Netw. Secur. (AINS). IEEE, 98--104.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Dzmitry Bahdanau, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. (2014). arXiv:arXiv:1409.0473Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Lukas Biewald. 2020. Experiment Tracking with Weights and Biases. https: //www.wandb.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Kukjin Choi, Jihun Yi, Changhwa Park, and Sungroh Yoon. 2021. Deep Learning for Anomaly Detection in Time-Series Data: Review, Analysis, and Guidelines. IEEE Access 9 (2021), 120043--120065. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021. 3107975Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. William Falcon and The PyTorch Lightning team. 2019. PyTorch Lightning. https: //doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3828935Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Nicolas Falliere, Liam O Murchu, and Eric Chien. 2011. W32. stuxnet dossier. White paper, symantec corp., security response 5, 6 (2011), 29.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheng Feng, Tingting Li, and Deeph Chana. 2017. Multi-level anomaly detection in industrial control systems via package signatures and LSTM networks. In 2017 47th Annu. IEEE/IFIP Int. Conf. on Dependable Syst. Netw. (DSN). IEEE, 261--272.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Pavel Filonov, Andrey Lavrentyev, and Artem Vorontsov. 2016. Multivariate industrial time series with cyber-attack simulation: Fault detection using an lstm-based predictive data model. (2016). arXiv:arXiv:1612.06676Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. MR Gauthama Raman, Nivethitha Somu, and Aditya P Mathur. 2019. Anomaly detection in critical infrastructure using probabilistic neural network. In Int. Conf. Appl. and Techn. in Inf. Secur. Springer, 129--141.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Amir Gholami, Zhewei Yao, Sehoon Kim, Michael W Mahoney, and Kurt Keutzer. 2021. AI and Memory Wall. https://medium.com/riselab/ai-and-memory-wall2cb4265cb0b8Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Jairo Giraldo, David Urbina, Alvaro Cardenas, Junia Valente, Mustafa Faisal, Justin Ruths, Nils Ole Tippenhauer, Henrik Sandberg, and Richard Candell. 2018. A Survey of Physics-Based Attack Detection in Cyber-Physical Systems. ACM Comput. Surv. 51, 4, Article 76 (jul 2018), 36 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3203245Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Jonathan Goh, Sridhar Adepu, Khurum Nazir Junejo, and Aditya Mathur. 2016. A dataset to support research in the design of secure water treatment systems. In Int. Conf. on Crit. Inf. Infrastructures Secur. Springer, 88--99.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Jonathan Goh, Sridhar Adepu, Marcus Tan, and Zi Shan Lee. 2017. Anomaly Detection in Cyber Physical Systems Using Recurrent Neural Networks. In 2017 IEEE 18th Int. Symp. High Assurance Syst. Eng. (HASE). 140--145. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/HASE.2017.36Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Ian Goodfellow, Yoshua Bengio, and Aaron Courville. 2016. Deep Learning. MIT Press. http://www.deeplearningbook.org.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Will Douglas Heaven. 2021. 2021 was the year of monster AI models. https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/12/21/1042835/2021-was-the-yearof-monster-ai-models/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Kevin E Hemsley, E Fisher, et al. 2018. History of industrial control system cyber incidents. Technical Report. Idaho National Lab.(INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. Neural computation 9, 8 (1997), 1735--1780.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Jun Inoue, Yoriyuki Yamagata, Yuqi Chen, Christopher M Poskitt, and Jun Sun. 2017. Anomaly detection for a water treatment system using unsupervised machine learning. In 2017 IEEE Int. Conf. Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW). IEEE, 1058--1065.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Anastasis Keliris and Michail Maniatakos. 2017. Demystifying advanced persistent threats for industrial control systems. Mech. Eng. 139, 03 (2017), S13--S17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Jonguk Kim, Jeong-Han Yun, and Hyoung Chun Kim. 2019. Anomaly detection for industrial control systems using sequence-to-sequence neural networks. In Comput. Secur. Springer, 3--18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. SungJin Kim, WooYeon Jo, and Taeshik Shon. 2020. APAD: Autoencoder-based payload anomaly detection for industrial IoE. J. Appl. Soft Comput. 88 (2020), 106017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization. (2014). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1412.6980 arXiv:arXiv:1412.6980Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Moshe Kravchik, Battista Biggio, and Asaf Shabtai. 2021. Poisoning attacks on cyber attack detectors for industrial control systems. In Proc. 36th Annu. ACM Symp. Appl. Comput. 116--125.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Aditya P. Mathur and Nils Ole Tippenhauer. 2016. SWaT: a water treatment testbed for research and training on ICS security. In 2016 Int. Workshop Cyberphysical Syst. Smart Water Netw. (CySWater). 31--36. https://doi.org/10.1109/ CySWater.2016.7469060Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Gauthama Raman MR, Chuadhry Mujeeb Ahmed, and Aditya Mathur. 2021. Machine learning for intrusion detection in industrial control systems: challenges and lessons from experimental evaluation. J. Cybersecur. 4, 1 (2021), 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. The pandas development team. 2020. pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas. https://doi. org/10.5281/zenodo.3509134Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas Kopf, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu Fang, Junjie Bai, and Soumith Chintala. 2019. PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library. In Advances in Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 32, H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d'Alché-Buc, E. Fox, and R. Garnett (Eds.). Curran Associates, Inc., 8024--8035. http://papers.neurips.cc/paper/9015-pytorch-an-imperativestyle-high-performance-deep-learning-library.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Ángel Luis Perales Gómez, Lorenzo Fernández Maimó, Alberto Huertas Celdrán, and Félix J García Clemente. 2020. MADICS: A Methodology for Anomaly Detection in Industrial Control Systems. J. Symmetry 12, 10 (2020), 1583.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Dmitry Shalyga, Pavel Filonov, and Andrey Lavrentyev. 2018. Anomaly detection for water treatment system based on neural network with automatic architecture optimization. (2018). arXiv:arXiv:1807.07282Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Riccardo Taormina and Stefano Galelli. 2018. Deep-learning approach to the detection and localization of cyber-physical attacks on water distGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. CloudPAD: Managed Anomaly Detection for ICS

        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
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          CPSIoTSec '22: Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on CPS & IoT Security and Privacy
          November 2022
          77 pages
          ISBN:9781450398763
          DOI:10.1145/3560826

          Copyright © 2022 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: 7 November 2022

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • short-paper

          Upcoming Conference

          CCS '24
          ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
          October 14 - 18, 2024
          Salt Lake City , UT , USA

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader