Evasive attacks against autoencoder-based cyberattack detection systems in power systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The digital transformation process of power systems toward smart grids is resulting in improved reliability, efficiency and situational awareness at the expense of increased cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Given the availability of large volumes of smart grid data, machine learning-based methods are considered an effective way to improve cybersecurity posture. Despite the unquestionable merits of machine learning approaches for cybersecurity enhancement, they represent a component of the cyberattack surface that is vulnerable, in particular, to adversarial attacks. In this paper, we examine the robustness of autoencoder-based cyberattack detection systems in smart grids to adversarial attacks. A novel iterative-based method is first proposed to craft adversarial attack samples. Then, it is demonstrated that an attacker with white-box access to the autoencoder-based cyberattack detection systems can successfully craft evasive samples using the proposed method. The results indicate that naive initial adversarial seeds cannot be employed to craft successful adversarial attacks shedding insight on the complexity of designing adversarial attacks against autoencoder-based cyberattack detection systems in smart grids.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".