RiskISM: A Risk Assessment Tool for Substations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Securing substations is crucial in ensuring unimpeded operations within the Smart Grid. Accordingly, one such measure that is taken to ensure a substation’s security is risk assessment. Identifying the most critical devices within the substation is crucial in mitigating the substation’s operational downtime during an attack. Also, it is possible to use the outcome of risk assessment as input to trust models. Most risk assessment tools require extensive profiling of the substation and its components as well as being modified to suit a substation under study. In this paper, we present RiskISM, a risk assessment tool for substations that implements certain stages of Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM). It profiles, from the substation architecture, each substation device’s unique identification, device classification, device type and functional influence to determine its criticality level. The tool’s output is the criticality-based colour-coding of each device and the visualization of the extent of functional influence each device has within the substation. It is this functional influence that determines the extent to which an attack on the device cascades when it is compromised. We believe utility providers can use the tool’s output as input to progressively implement defence mechanisms. We also believe that the output of this tool can be used as input to trust models and we have reserved this for future work.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".