Security of Cyber-Physical Systems. From Theory to Testbeds and Validation

by   Jose Rubio-Hernan, et al.

Traditional control environments connected to physical systems are being upgraded with novel information and communication technologies. The resulting systems need to be adequately protected. Experimental testbeds are crucial for the study and analysis of ongoing threats against those resulting cyber-physical systems. The research presented in this paper discusses some actions towards the development of a replicable and affordable cyber-physical testbed for training and research. The architecture of the testbed is based on real-world components, and emulates cyber-physical scenarios commanded by SCADA (Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition) technologies. We focus on two representative protocols, Modbus and DNP3. The paper reports as well the development of some adversarial scenarios, in order to evaluate the testbed under cyber-physical threat situations. Some detection strategies are evaluated using our proposed testbed.



There are no comments yet.


page 1

page 2

page 3

page 4


Cyber-Physical Architecture Assisted by Programmable Networking

Cyber-physical technologies are prone to attacks, in addition to faults ...

Model-Based Risk Assessment for Cyber Physical Systems Security

Traditional techniques for Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) security design ...

On Securing Cloud-hosted Cyber-physical Systems Using Trusted Execution Environments

Recently, cloud control systems have gained increasing attention from th...

Quality of Control Assessment for Tactile Internet based Cyber-Physical Systems

We evolve a methodology and define a metric to evaluate Tactile Internet...

Science Hackathons for Cyberphysical System Security Research: Putting CPS testbed platforms to good use

A challenge is to develop cyber-physical system scenarios that reflect t...

Evaluating Low-Power Wireless Cyber-Physical Systems

Simulation tools and testbeds have been proposed to assess the performan...

Cyber-Physical Testbed for Power System Wide-Area Measurement-Based Control Using Open-Source Software

The electric power system is a cyber-physical system with power flow in ...
This week in AI

Get the week's most popular data science and artificial intelligence research sent straight to your inbox every Saturday.

1 Introduction

Traditional control systems are evolving in an effort to reduce complexity and cost. These systems are converging into using a shared network layer, enabling interconnectivity between different manufacturers. Despite all the evident advantages of joining the communication layer in a shared network, this evolution also opens the door to the emergence of sophisticated cyber-threats [13, 6]. These threats need to be assessed to offer novel countermeasures to minimize the risk when using shared communication layers.

Critical services infrastructures, such as water management, transportation of electricity, rail and air traffic control, belong to systems nowadays coined as Cyber-Physical Systems (CPSs). The impact of any security breach to these environments can affect the physical integrity of individuals in contact to those systems. Even basic threats such as replay cyber-physical attacks [22] could potentially cause significant damages if attack detection is not properly undertaken. Within this scope, our goal is to put in practice solutions of theoretical nature, modeled and implemented under realistic scenarios, in order to analyze their effectiveness against intentional attacks. More precisely, we assume cyber-physical environments operated by SCADA (Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition) technologies and industrial control protocols. We focus on two representative protocols, which are widely used in the industry: Modbus and DNP3 [16, 5]. Both protocols have TCP enabled versions. This allows us the emulation of cyber-physical environments under shared network infrastructures. We assume a Master-Slave design pattern, which mainly dictates that slaves would not initiate any communication unless a given master requests an initial operation. One of our objectives has been to combine these two protocols, both to allow the flexibility and support of several devices with Modbus as well as the security enhancements that DNP3 could provide as one of its features. Furthermore, some cyber-physical detection mechanisms based on challenge-response strategies proposed in [15, 20] are embedded in our SCADA testbed to experiment and analyze with their real-world performance. To complement the testbed, a set of adversarial scenarios are designed and developed to test attacks against the emulated environment. These scenarios focus on attacking the Modbus segments of the SCADA architecture. The final goal is to analyze the effectiveness of novel security methods implemented upon the emulated environment, and under the enforcement of some attack models.

Paper Organization — Section 2 provides the background. Section 3 provides details about the testbed implementation. Section 4 presents some experimental results. Section 5 provides related work. Section 6 concludes the paper.

2 Background

2.1 SCADA Technologies

We assume Cyber-Physical Systems operated by SCADA technologies and Industrial Control Protocols. SCADA (Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition) technologies are composed of well-defined types of field devices, such as: (1) Master Terminal Units (MTUs) and Human Machine Interfaces (HMIs), located at the topmost layer and managing device communications; (2) Remote Terminal Units (RTUs) and Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs), controlling and acquiring data from remote equipment and connecting with the master stations; and (3) sensors and actuators.

The MTUs of a SCADA system are located at the control center of the organization. The MTUs give access to the management of communications, data storage, and control of sensors and actuators connected to RTUs. The interface to the administrators is provided via the HMIs. The RTUs are stand-alone data acquisition and control units. Their tasks are twofold: (1) to control and acquire data from process equipment (at the remote sites); and (2) to communicate the collected data to a master (supervision) station. Modern RTUs may also communicate between them (either via wired or wireless networks). The PLCs are small industrial microprocessor-based computers. The significant differences with respect to an RTU are in size and capability. Sensors are monitoring devices responsible for retrieving measurements related to specific physical phenomena, and communicate such measurements to the controllers. Actuators translate control signals to actions that are needed to correct the dynamics of the system, via the RTUs and PLCs.

2.2 Industrial Control Protocols

Protocols for industrial control systems built upon SCADA technologies must cover regulation rules such as delays and faults [2]. However, few protocols imposed by industrial standards provide security features in the traditional ICT security sense. Details about two representative SCADA protocols used in our work follow.

Modbus – One of the first protocols that stands out when working with data acquisition systems is Modbus [16]. It was developed around the 80’s and it was done with no security concerns as was common at that time. It was developed by Modicon to be used with their PLCs. The protocol was formulated as a method to transmit data between electrical devices over serial lines. In the standard working mode, Modbus has a master and slave architecture, something really common for half duplex communications. The protocol is free and open source, making it really popular among the automation industry. The protocol evolved to allow different communication technologies. For instance, Modbus ASCII, for serial communications; and Modbus TCP/IP for Ethernet networks.

Distributed Network Protocol (DNP3) – As with Modbus, DNP3 is a query-response protocol for process automation systems. Messages are sent over serial bus connections or Ethernet networks (using the TCP/IP stack) [5]. The protocol recently has been leaning towards a more security-oriented design. Previous versions of the protocol suffered from the same kind of design conception where security was not taken into account, due to the inherent level of security that dedicated networks provided by this protocol.

2.3 Control-theoretic Protection

Cyber-physical systems operated by SCADA technologies and industrial control protocols can be represented as closed-loop systems. Such systems follow closely the pattern of controlling the system based on the feedback they are getting from measurements. Several control-theoretic solutions have been presented in the literature to detect attacks against cyber-physical systems. In [24], some techniques are presented to improve the security of networked control systems using control theory. A proper example is the use of authentication watermarks. Stationary watermarks, i.e., Gaussian zero-mean distributed signals, are added to the control signals, in order to identify integrity attacks against the system. The watermark-based detector can identify the effect of real distribution values, generated at the output, with regard to, e.g., replayed or injected distribution values [15]. However, adversaries with enough resources to infer the dynamics of the protected system can evade detection [20]. Indeed, there are several methods that a potential attacker can use to identify and learn the behavior of the system [1]. The goal of these techniques is to obtain a mathematical model of the system, based on eavesdropped measurements. Non-parametric system identification techniques include the use of adaptive filters, such as Finite Impulse Response (FIR) filters. Some more powerful techniques to identify complex dynamic systems include the use of autoregressive methods, such as ARX (autoregressive exogenous model) and ARMAX (autoregressive-moving-average model with exogenous inputs model) [26]

. These techniques can be used by malicious adversaries, in order to estimate the parameters of the system prior executing their attacks. Improvements to address those aforementioned problems have been presented in

[20, 19]. The goal of the testbed presented in the following section is to validate the effectiveness of the aforementioned techniques. Data derived from the testbed is expected to complement theoretical and numeric simulations provided in previous work.

3 Testbed Design

Figure 3.1: Abstract architecture overview.

3.1 Architecture

Closed-loop systems are systems which rely upon internally gathered information to perform, correct, change or even stop actions. This kind of systems are important in the control theory branch, known to have two-way communication, one to read data and the other to forward commands.

We can observe three important block elements: the controller, the system itself, and the sensors. The controller reads data from the sensors, computes new information and transmit new commands to the system (i.e., the system control input). The system control input is generated by the controller with the purpose of correcting the behavior of the system, under some previously established limits. The system is what we normally see as the entity under control. The sensors are the feedback link between the system and the controller. Their purpose is to quantify the output and provide the necessary information to the controller, in order to compare and, if necessary, correct the behavior of the system.

The architecture proposed for our SCADA testbed works as follows. All the aforementioned elements can be distributed across several nodes in a shared network combining DNP3 and Modbus protocols (cf. Figure 3.1). Likewise, one or various elements can be embedded into a single device. From a software standpoint, the controller never connects directly to the sensors. Instead, it is integrated in the architecture as a SCADA PLC (Programmable Logic Controller) node, with eventual connections to some other intermediary nodes. Such nodes are able to translate the controller commands into SCADA (e.g., either Modbus or DNP3) commands. As depicted in Figure 3.1, the architecture is able to handle several industrial protocols and connect to complementary SCADA elements, such as additional PLCs and RTUs (Remote Terminal Units). To evolve the architecture into a complete testbed, new elements can be included in the system, such as additional proxy-like RTU nodes.

From a data transmission standpoint, we include in our SCADA testbed the possibility of using different sampling frequencies, in order to cover a larger number of experimental scenarios. The implementation is based on control theory [19] supporting the use of different frequencies when performing read and write operations. Specifically, this narrows to the sampling frequency, a system with mono-frequency sampling is where the same frequency is used for all the channels or multi-frequency sampling where different sampling frequencies are used in each channel. Depending on the nature of the system mono or multi is better.

The architecture is able to handle many PLCs. To avoid overloading one channel with all the possible registers of the PLCs, separate ports are designated in order to isolate the communication between separated PLCs. DNP3 commands perform an Integrity Scan which gathers all the data from the PLCs in case several PLCs were being handled in the same channel, all variables of the a PLC would be fetched causing overhead in the communication.

3.2 Implementation Design

The implementation of our SCADA testbed consists on Lego Mindstorms EV3 bricks [18] and Raspberry Pi [12] boards as PLCs to control some representative sensors (e.g., distance sensors) and actuators (e.g., speed actuators). We refer the reader to for additional information. Figure 3.2 shows an object-oriented representation of the testbed implementation, along with connection control classes, exception classes and also graphical interface classes at the controller side. In Figure 3.3, we can see all the classes that have been created in order to achieve the DNP3-Modbus combination, at the RTU side. A proxy-like behavior has been also implemented allowing to translate the commands in both directions for both protocols.

Figure 3.2: Implementation overview, controller side.

3.2.1 Controller Design —

The controller has a graphical interface to show the behavior of the system to an operator. It is orchestrated by the ControlCenter class (cf. Figure 3.2). This class handles the graphical interface (cf. HomeFrame class) representing the HMI (Human Machine Interface) of the SCADA architecture. Some PLC instances, e.g., the Car instances, subsequently create DNP3 connections under a DataHandler, which is in charge of managing the communications between RTUs and PLCs. Finally, some of the instances (e.g., the Car instance) implement a graphical component to provide additional information to the operator.

3.2.2 RTU Design —

In the implementation, it is possible to have control of one or more PLC instances. For such a task, a dedicated thread manages the translations and constant polling of each PLC. Everything starts with the MainRTU class (cf. Figure 3.3), which opens the main DNP3 connection to expect the controller. Once the controller connects, the RTUs exchange information of the PLCs to add, and create all the respective classes in order to handle each PLC individually and with dedicated ports.

Figure 3.3: Implementation overview, RTU side.
Figure 3.4: Test scenario overview (cf.

3.2.3 External Tools —

Apart from the architecture implementation, other tools have been implemented in order to facilitate the aggregation process of new SCADA nodes. Specific custom scripts have been made to install the OpenDNP3 libraries either compiling them from source or use precompiled binaries for the case of the Raspberry Pi. Compiling source is time-consuming if it is done directly at the Raspberry Pi boards. Therefore, cross-compiling or precompiled libraries are recommended to avoid long compilation times. The Raspbian scripts give the choice to use precompiled libraries.

3.3 Test Scenario Description

Figure 3.4 shows the components of a test scenario. This scenario is a simple representation of the architecture proposed in this paper. It consists of a controller (Personal Computer), an RTU (Raspberry Pi) and a PLC (Lego EV3 Brick). The controller is always correcting the car speed and polling the distance between the car and an obstacle. One single controller and one single RTU can control various PLCs. To start the testbed is necessary to launch the Java program on the brick [23], and the intermediary Java software in the Raspberry Pi board. When starting the controller and adding a car, the controller communicates with each layer to perform the request. The car behavior is continually being modified by the controller hence varying the car speed many times per second.

3.4 Implementation of MiM Attacks

Man-in-the-middle (MiM) is a very common type of attack, compromising the communication in both ends, especially if the communication is not encrypted as is the case with many SCADA implementations. As mentioned previously, the watermark detectors reported in [20, 19] are implemented in our testbed. Theoretical proofs and numeric simulations were already conducted to validate the proposed detectors. The testbed proposed in this paper was expected to provide complementary validation of the detectors. After having an entire architecture working, the next requirement was to implement the adversarial scenarios reported in [20, 19].

In order to develop the scenarios, an attacker model was used as a base for assumptions to define the opponents’ capabilities. We assume that the attacker can intercept all communication between ends, and thus the attacker can alter, store, analyze replay and forge false data in the communication. Since this is done using a testbed instead of numeric simulations, all real-life limitations are applied to the attacker. ARP poisoning [17] is used by the attacker to intercept the channels and eavesdrop the communications. The attacker has a passive and active mode of operation. The passive mode is where the attacker only eavesdrops, processes, and analyzes the data without modifying the information contained in the payload of the messages. Nevertheless, Ethernet header data, such as the hardware addresses, are modified since ARP tables are poisoned. During the active mode, the attacker starts injecting data to the hijacked communication. This injection, depending on the pattern of the attacker, can be a generated response or replayed packets.

3.4.1 Replay Attack —

The attacker uses ARP poisoning to start eavesdropping the connection (passive mode). After capturing enough data, the active mode starts. The attacker injects the old captured data following the stream of packets of the previous capture. Before starting to disrupt the system, the attacker conducts the attack between the sensors and the controller, forging only the TCP headers that correspond to the opened TCP sessions. Once replayed the packets, the system gets disrupted by forging data between the controller and the PLCs.

3.4.2 Injection Attacks —

Prior to starting the attacks, the attacker eavesdrops connections using the passive mode, and analyze the data in order to infer the dynamics of the system. This is used to evade the authentication watermark detector. Once inferred the model of the system, the attacker starts injecting correct data in the communication in order to defeat the watermark countermeasure. To delude the detector, the attacker calculates the effect of the watermark in the system and tries to cancel the ability of the detector to sense the changes in the feedback signal. Two different techniques are implemented: 1) a non-parametric filter, called Finite Impulse Response filter (FIR), in order to implement the evasion technique presented in [20]; and 2) autoregressive methods, such as ARX and ARMAX, in order to implement the evasion technique presented in [19].

3.5 Attack and Fault Detection

The adaptation of a fault detector in order to detect attacks using an authentication watermark is a valid technique that has been proved to work in [15, 20, 19]. The aforementioned techniques have been implemented in our SCADA testbed, in order to assess and analyze their performance using real hardware components. The testbed controllers have built-in the detector with different types of watermarks (cf. Section 2.3). The implementation uses the JKalman library [4], with some light modifications to parameterize the system and detect the effect of the watermark in the system’s output. The detector estimates the next output of the system and then compares it to the value returned by the system. The process uses the detector proposed in [15]. The detector returns a metric, , which increases rapidly when the output of the system starts to move away from the estimation. The metric is posteriorly used to generate alerts.


metric is an in-code operator that quantifies the difference between the parametric model output and the actual system output. An increase of

means that the system is not behaving or reacting to the watermark as expected. Therefore, the system is likely to be under attack. The value of is calculated for each iteration and compared with the values of some previous iterations. In order to discard false positives, the controller implements the validation code presented in Algorithm 1, to separate normal faults from attacks or severe failures. The algorithm alerts the operator only when real intervention is required, making the differentiation between faults, e.g., latency or inaccuracy events at the sensor; and intentional attacks. For every feedback sample, the controller analyzes . If consecutively bypasses a given threshold more than times, then it triggers an .

1:procedure detection algorithm
3:     loop:
4:     if  then
5:         .
6:         if  then
7:              .          
8:     else
9:         .      
Algorithm 1 — Fault and Attack Detector

4 Experimentation and Results

4.1 Experimentation

We present in this section the results of applying the watermark authentication technique presented in [20, 19] under the testbed presented in Section 3. Several repetitions of the experiment were orchestrated using automated scripts handling the elements of our SCADA testbed scenarios. The scripts can perform several actions, such as starting the controller and the RTUs, as well as executing the predefined attacks. A set of attacks and detectors have been used and posteriorly analyzed. The combinations, attack–detector, are the following:

  • Replay Attack–Watermark Disabled: the attacker is likely to evade the detector, since no watermark is injected into the system.

  • Replay Attack–Watermark Enabled: the attacker is likely identified by the detector, since the attack is not able to adapt to the current watermark.

  • Non-parametric Attack–Stationary Watermark: attacker and detector have equal chances of success.

  • Non-parametric Attack–Non-stationary Watermark: the non-stationary watermark changes the distribution systematically, hence preventing the FIR-based attack to adapt to such changes. The expected results are an increase of the detection ratio.

  • Parametric Attack–Stationary Watermark: the attacker is likely to evade the detector when the attack properly infers the system parameters.

  • Parametric Attack–Non-stationary Watermark: the attacker is also likely to evade the detector when the system parameters are properly identified.

The cyber-physical implications of the testbed hinder the experimentation process especially when several repetitions are required in order to obtain statistical results, contrary to simulations where only the code is executed. The creation of the orchestration script, which automates the test, has been necessary to simplify the experimentation tasks. Next section shows the results using the testbed for the aforementioned attacker-detector combinations. A sample execution of the Replay Attack – Watermark Disabled scenario is available at

4.2 Experimental Results

After collecting data from different devices across the SCADA testbed, the data is analyzed accordingly to interpret the performance of the detector with regard to the attack scenario. Since the stationary watermark detector was correctly refined for each test scenario, we are able to analyze in depth the results through a statistical evaluation of the data. Experimental results with the non-stationary watermark mechanism are also conducted. Figure 4.1 shows the detector values, , for all the attack-detector combinations defined in Section 4.1.

(a) No watermark under replay attack (b) Stationary watermark under replay attack (c) Stationary watermark under non-parametric attack (d) Non-stationary watermark under non-parametric attack (e) Stationary watermark under parametric attack (f) Non-stationary watermark under parametric attack
Figure 4.1:

Detection results. The horizontal solid line represents the threshold. The vertical dotted line represents the moment when the attack starts. Peaks on the left side of the vertical dotted line represent false positives. (a),(b) detection values of

, without and with stationary watermark under replay attack. (c),(d) detection values with stationary and non-stationary watermark under non-parametric attack. And (e),(f) detection values with stationary and non-stationary watermark under parametric attack.

For all the plots, the solid horizontal line represents the threshold; and the vertical dotted line represents the moment when the attacker starts injecting malicious data. The short peaks on the left side of the plots, those bypassing the threshold line before the start of the attacks, are counted as false positives or system faults.

Figures 4.1(a) and 4.1(b) show the experimental results of the replay attack. When the watermark was disabled (cf. Figure 4.1(a)), the attacker properly evades the detector. Since the controller is not inserting the protection watermark, it does not detect the attack. On the contrary, the results in Figure 4.1(b) show that the activation of the watermark under the same scenario allows the controller to alert about the attack almost immediately. Based on these results, we can conclude that the stationary watermark based detector properly works out to detect the replay attack.

Figure 4.1(c) represents the non-parametric attacker against the previously tested stationary watermark. The detector is now unable to detect the attacker. Figure 4.1(d) shows the case where the non-stationary watermark is enabled. Under this situation, the detector has lightly more chances of detecting the attack. This shows how the non-stationary watermark mechanism does improve the detection abilities compared to the stationary watermark approach.

Figures 4.1(e) and 4.1(f) evaluate the scenario associated to the parametric attacks. Theoretically, the attacker is expected to evade the detector when the attack succeeds at properly identifying the parameters of the system dynamics. Figure 4.1(e) represents the experiments where the parametric attack is executed under the stationary watermark scenario. The figure shows that the detector value, , remains most of the time below the detection threshold. Figure 4.1(f) shows the behavior of the detector under the non-stationary watermark scenario. This time, the detector has slightly more chances of detecting the attack.

4.3 Statistical Data Evaluation

Using the watermark-based detection mechanism, we run for each attack scenario 75 automated rounds (about 4 hours of data collection processing). In order to evaluate the results, we use the following metrics:

  1. Detection Ratio, associated to the success percentage of the detector, calculated with regard to time range after each attack starts.

  2. Average Detection Time, determining the amount of time needed by the detector to trigger the attack alert.

  3. False Negative (FN) ratio, determining the number of samples where the detector fails at successfully alerting about the attacks. The ratio is calculated as follows,


    where SA represents the values of the samples under attack, and AD the samples detected as an attack.

  4. False Positives (FP) ratio, calculated as the number of samples where the detector signals benign events as attacks. The ratio is calculated as follows,


    where SN represents the number of samples under normal operation, and AD the number of samples detected as attack by mistake.

Table 1 shows the performance results of the detector, based on the Detection Ratio and the Average detection Time metrics.

Replay Attack
Detection Ratio 40.00% 18.00% 12.00%
Average Detection Time 18.81s 10.17s 6.08s
Table 1: Detector performance results.

Regarding the results shown in Table 1, we can emphasize that the replay attack is the most detectable scenario, with a detection ratio of about . This detection ratio is still far from perfect, maybe due to the sensors accuracy and resolution; but better than for the rest of scenarios. The non-parametric attacker has a lower detection ratio, of about . This result is expected, as suggested by the theoretical and simulation-based conclusions available at [20], where the authors emphasize that the mechanism is not sufficiently robust to detect adversaries that are able to identify the system model. To finish, the parametric attack has the most robust system identification approach. The attacks can evade the detection process if they succeed at properly identifying the system attributes. In terms of results, they lead to the lowest detection rate of about .

During the replay attack, the Average Detection Time is the slowest of all the adversarial scenarios. This behavior is due to the watermark distribution properties, since the watermark variation makes the replay attack highly detectable. At the same time, the injection attacks (either the parametric or the non-parametric version) are detected much faster than the replay attack. This is due to the transition period needed by the attackers to estimate the correct data prior misleading the detector. For this reason, if the attacker does not choose the precise moment to start the attack, the detector implemented at the controller side is able to detect the injected data, right at the beginning of the attack. Furthermore, the attackers shall also synchronize their estimations to the measurements sent by the sensors. In case of failing the synchronization process, the detector does identify the uncorrelated data, and reports the attack.

Table 2 shows that the detection of the replay attack has the lowest false negative ratio, , hence confirming that this adversarial scenario is the most detectable situation with regard to the detection techniques reported in [15]. The detection of the non-parametric attacks has a higher false negative ratio, , confirming the theoretical and simulation-based results reported in [20]. The detection of the parametric attacks also confirms the results estimated in [19], and leading to the highest false negative ratio, . Finally, and in terms of false positive ratio, the three adversarial scenarios show a low impact (on average, about false positive ratio). Such low impact is, moreover, easy to tune by adapting the parameters of Algorithm 1.

Replay Attack
False Negatives 64.06% 85.20% 88.63%
False Positives 0.98% 1.66% 1.35%
Table 2: Long run experiment results.

5 Related Work

The study of security incidents associated to cyber-physical systems underlying critical infrastructures has gathered a big amount of attention since the infamous Stuxnet case [13]. Since then, research on cyber-physical systems has progressed substantially resulting in a large number of testbeds developed and established in the literature. A non-exhaustive list follows.

Myat-Aung present in [9] a Secure Water Treatment (SWaT) simulation and testbed to test defense mechanisms against a variety of attacks. Siaterlis et al. [21] define a cyber-physical Experimentation Platform for Internet Contingencies (EPIC) that is able to study multiple independent infrastructures and to provide information about the propagation of faults and disruptions. Green et al. [7] focus their work on an adaptive cyber-physical testbed where they include different equipments, diverse networks, and also business processes. Yardley reports in [25] a cyber-physical testbed based on commercial tools in order to experimentally validate emerging research and technologies. The testbed combines emulation, simulation, and real hardware to experiment with smart grid technologies. Krotofil and Larsen show in [11] several testbeds and simulations concluding that a successful attack against their envisioned systems has to manage cyber and physical knowledge.

From a more control-theoretic standpoint, Candell et al. report in [3] a testbed to analyze the performance of security mechanisms for cyber-physical systems. The work reports as well discussions from control and security practitioners. McLaughlin et al. analyze in [14] different testbeds and conclude that it is necessary to use pathways between cyber and physical components of the system in order to detect attacks. Also, Koutsandria et al. [10]

implement a testbed where the data are cross-checked, using cyber and physical elements. Holm et al. survey, classify and analyze in

[8] several cyber-physical testbeds proposed for scientific research. Inline with the aforementioned contributions, we have presented in this paper an ongoing testbed that aims at evaluating research mitigation techniques targeting attacks at the physical layer of cyber-physical systems operated via SCADA protocols. The initial focus of our testbed has been the evaluation of the control-theoretic security mechanisms reported in [15, 20, 19].

6 Conclusion

In pursuance of security testing in cyber-physical systems, this paper has provided a practical description of an ongoing platform to test theoretical cyber-physical defense techniques. The architecture of the testbed is based on real-world components, in order to emulate cyber-physical systems commanded by SCADA (Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition) technologies. Two real-world protocol implementations are included within our platform.

Three types of adversarial scenarios were also integrated in our testbed. The three scenarios enforce different types of attackers, incrementing the usability of the testbed to experiment novel security methods against a wider variety of malicious intents. All three scenarios were confronted against representative defense techniques. The platform also implements testing automation in order to provide larger datasets as results and enabling the architecture to perform repetitive tests. Experimental results confirm previous theoretical and simulation-based work.

Acknowledgements. The authors acknowledge support from the Cyber CNI Chair of Institut Mines-Télécom. The chair is held by Télécom Bretagne and supported by Airbus Defence and Space, Amossys, EDF, Orange, La Poste, Nokia, Société Générale and the Regional Council of Brittany. It has been acknowledged by the Center of excellence in Cybersecurity.


  • [1] R. Aarts. System identification and parameter estimation. Technical report, Faculty of Engineering Technology, University Twente, 2012.
  • [2] S. Brown. Overview of IEC 61508 Design of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems. Computing and Control Engineering Journal, 11(1):6–12, 2000.
  • [3] R. Candell, K. Stouffer, and D. Anand. A cybersecurity testbed for industrial control systems. In Process Control and Safety Symposium, International Society of Automation, Houston, TX, 2014.
  • [4] P. Chmelar. Java kalman library, 2014,, Last access: October 2016.
  • [5] K. Curtis. A DNP3 Protocol Primer. A basic technical overview of the protocol, 2005,, Last access: October 2016.
  • [6] J. H. Graham and S. C. Patel. Security Considerations in SCADA Communication Protocols. Technical Report TR-ISRL-04-01, 2004,, Last access: October 2016.
  • [7] B. Green, D. Hutchison, S. A. F. Frey, and A. Rashid. Testbed diversity as a fundamental principle for effective ICS security research. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Security and Resilience of Cyber-Physical Infrastructures (SERECIN). Lancaster University, Technical Report SCC-2016-01, pp. 12–15, 2016.
  • [8] H. Holm, M. Karresand, A. Vidström, and E. Westring. A survey of industrial control system testbeds. In S. Buchegger and M. Dam, editors, Secure IT Systems: 20th Nordic Conference, NordSec 2015, Stockholm, Sweden, October 19–21, 2015, Proceedings, pages 11–26. Springer International Publishing, 2015.
  • [9] A. Kaung Myat. Secure Water Treatment Testbed (SWaT): An Overview, 2015,, Last access: October 2016.
  • [10] G. Koutsandria, R. Gentz, M. Jamei, A. Scaglione, S. Peisert, and C. McParland. A real-time testbed environment for cyber-physical security on the power grid. In 1st ACM Workshop on Cyber-Physical Systems-Security and/or Privacy, pages 67–78. ACM, 2015.
  • [11] M. Krotofil and J. Larsen. Rocking the pocket book: Hacking chemical plants for competition and extortion. DEF CON, 23, 2015.
  • [12] S. S. Lagu and S. B. Deshmukh. Raspberry Pi for Automation of Water Treatment Plant. In Computing Communication Control and Automation (ICCUBEA), 2015 International Conference on, pages 532–536, February 2015.
  • [13] R. Langner. Stuxnet: Dissecting a cyberwarfare weapon. Security & Privacy, IEEE, 9(3):49–51, 2011.
  • [14] S. McLaughlin, C. Konstantinou, X. Wang, L. Davi, A.-R. Sadeghi, M. Maniatakos, and R. Karri. The Cybersecurity Landscape in Industrial Control Systems. Proceedings of the IEEE, 104(5):1039–1057, May 2016.
  • [15] Y. Mo, S. Weerakkody, and B. Sinopoli. Physical Authentication of Control Systems: Designing Watermarked Control Inputs to Detect Counterfeit Sensor Outputs. IEEE Control Systems, 35(1):93–109, February 2015.
  • [16] Modbus Organization. Official Modbus Specifications, 2016,, Last access: October 2016.
  • [17] S. Y. Nam, D. Kim, and J. Kim. Enhanced ARP: preventing ARP poisoning-based man-in-the-middle attacks. IEEE communications letters, 14(2):187–189, 2010.
  • [18] M. Rollins. Beginning LEGO MINDSTORMS EV3. Apress, 2014.
  • [19] J. Rubio-Hernan, L. De Cicco, and J. Garcia-Alfaro. Event-Triggered Watermarking Control to Handle Cyber-Physical Integrity Attacks. In Secure IT Systems: 21st Nordic Conference, NordSec 2016, Oulu, Finland, November 2-4, 2016. Proceedings, pages 3–19. Springer International Publishing, 2016.
  • [20] J. Rubio-Hernan, L. De Cicco, and J. Garcia-Alfaro. Revisiting a Watermark-based Detection Scheme to Handle Cyber-Physical Attacks. In 11th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, Salzburg, Austria, Sep 2016. IEEE.
  • [21] C. Siaterlis, B. Genge, and M. Hohenadel. EPIC: a testbed for scientifically rigorous cyber-physical security experimentation. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing, 1(2):319–330, Dec 2013.
  • [22] A. Teixeira, I. Shames, H. Sandberg, and K. H. Johansson. A secure control framework for resource-limited adversaries. Automatica, 51:135–148, 2015.
  • [23] D. Wimberger and J. Charlton. Java modbus library, 2004,, Last access: October 2016.
  • [24] G. Wu, J. Sun, and J. Chen. A survey on the security of cyber-physical systems. Control Theory and Technology, 14(1):2–10, 2016.
  • [25] T. Yardley. Testbed cross-cutting research, 2014,, Last access: October 2016.
  • [26] Y. Zhu. New development in industrial MPC identification. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Advanced Control of Chemical Processes (ADChEM). Hong Kong, China, January 2003.