MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Denial-of-Service Attack Detection and Mitigation Strategy for Synchrophasor Data Flowing in Power Transmission System

2024· article· en· W4403722823 on OpenAlexaff
Bhavesh R. Bhalja, Tarlochan Sidhu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Security and Intrusion Detection
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDenial-of-service attackTransmission (telecommunications)Computer sciencePower (physics)Computer securityDenialService (business)Electric power systemPower transmissionComputer networkTelecommunicationsBusinessThe Internet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The coupling of the legacy power infrastructure with complex computer networks and the integration of communication devices has led to the problem of cyberattacks, which in turn may induce partial/full blackouts. In this regard, an approach based on a Decision Tree for the detection and mitigation of Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks is proposed in this paper. Based on the patterns and effects observed during DoS attacks on the Synchrophasor data flowing from the Phasor Measurement Unit (PMU) to the Phasor Data Concentrator (PDC), various supervised machine learning models are employed, which classify healthy and attack data and detect DoS attacks. Thereafter, a recurrent deep learning network employing Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) architecture is utilized to reconstruct the lost data, which in turn is helpful in mitigating the impacts of a DoS attack. The suggested algorithms are validated using a real-world scenario of a communication dataflow between multiple PMUs placed at different buses of a power transmission network and a PDC present at a control center, representing a wide-area network, and are incorporated using Real Time Digital Simulator and openPDC. By comparing various metrics of ML classification, the results indicate that the decision tree based model gives better accuracy along with the least detection time compared to other machine learning-based models. The suggested GRU-based mitigation algorithm can reconstruct the DoS-impacted lost data from the available pre-attack phasors.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFrench-language works237,207