MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Detection of Cyber Attacks on Synchro-Phasor Network Targeting Topology Detection Application of Power Distribution Grids

2023· article· en· W4389387714 on OpenAlexaff
Afshin Ebtia, Dhiaa Elhak Rebbah, Altayeb Qasem, Mohsen Ghafouri, Danial Jafarigiv, Mourad Debbabi, Arash Mohammadi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Security and Resilience
Canadian institutionsHydro-QuébecConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhasorSynchroNetwork topologyComputer scienceTopology (electrical circuits)Power (physics)Computer networkElectrical engineeringElectric power systemEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inferring the accurate topology of Power Distribution Networks (PDNs) is necessary for the operation of their major applications, e.g., state estimation and voltage control. The state-of-the-art Topology Detection (TD) methods benefit from Deep Learning (DL) models as well as high-resolution and synchronized data from Micro Phasor Measurement Units ($\mu$ PMUs) to accurately identify the PDN topology in real-time. Such deployment of TD methods, however, makes them prone to cyber threats due to vulnerabilities of $\mu$ PMUs communication network. On this basis, this paper analyzes the performance of the aforementioned TD methods in the presence of cyber attacks against synchro-phasor networks of PDNs. It demonstrates how a well-crafted cyber attack can mislead the TD method and portray a fake topology to the operator’s control applications. To do so, first, a threat model based on the vulnerabilities of synchro-phasor networks is proposed. Second, a DL-based TD method is adopted and trained for different topologies and loading conditions of a PDN based on the data received from the synchro-phasor network. Third, a cyber attack model that compromises the $\mu$ PMUs data is developed to falsify the detected topology of the PDN. Fourth, the impact of falsified topology on the operation of the voltage control application is demonstrated. Finally, a detection method is proposed to identify the developed cyber attack. The attack model and the detection method are evaluated using the IEEE 33-bus benchmark.

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)0.004
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Grid Security and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207