MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377235660 · doi:10.1109/tifs.2023.3277688

PLCPrint: Fingerprinting Memory Attacks in Programmable Logic Controllers

2023· article· en· W4377235660 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Marco M. Cook, Angelos K. Marnerides, Dimitrios P. Pezaros

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital and Cyber Forensics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDefence Science and Technology LaboratoryDefence and Security AcceleratorEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilNew Brunswick Innovation Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceExploitContext (archaeology)Embedded systemProgrammable logic controllerMemory managementMemory addressComputer hardwareComputer securitySemiconductor memoryOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs) constitute the functioning basis of Industrial Control Systems (ICS) and hence are often a focal point for attackers to exploit. Previous attacks have seen PLC memory maliciously altered in order to disrupt the underlying physical process. Different types of memory attack can cause a similar impact on the PLC’s operation and result in indistinguishable physical manifestations. Consequently, delays in triaging attacks through digital forensic practices can induce significant financial loss, physical damage to the infrastructure, and degradation of safety. In this work, we propose PLCPrint, a novel vendor-independent fingerprinting approach that utilises PLC memory artefacts to perform detection and classification of memory attacks. PLCPrint uses PLC memory register mapping, a novel method exploiting the relationship between PLC registers and memory artefacts including the PLC application code. Through this, registers are assigned a Mapping Condition (MC) to indicate how they exist within the PLC memory artefacts. We evaluate the performance of PLCPrint over realistic emulations conducted at a real testbed emulating water filtration and distribution. Through PLCPrint we depict how MC deviations are utilised within supervised learning schemes such as to adequately classify PLC memory attacks with high accuracy performance. In general, we demonstrate that PLCPrint fills the gap in the context of attack technique triaging since this has been a missing element within current ICS forensics schemes.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and SecuritySame topicDigital and Cyber ForensicsFrench-language works237,207