MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of Denial-of-Service Cyberattacks on Hydrogen Refueling Stations in An Integrated Transportation and Electric Power System

2024· article· en· W4410492790 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Abd Elaziz Elsayed, Hany E. Z. Farag

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and Detonation Processes
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDenial-of-service attackComputer securityService (business)DenialPower (physics)BusinessComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Expanding hydrogen stations is vital for green energy and reducing carbon emissions, but their high costs require efficient operation. Integrating these stations with transportation and power systems can help use excess renewable energy effectively, generate profits, and provide grid services. However, this integration involves sharing sensitive data with the Energy Management System (EMS), which can expose the system to cyberattacks, potentially affecting financial stability and slowing down growth. This paper examines the impact of Denial-of-Service (DoS) cyberattacks on the profitability of hydrogen refueling stations (HRSs). First, the effect of DoS on each critical information signal is analyzed. Based on the signals' vulnerability to cyberattacks, a Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) model is developed to target multiple signals simultaneously, amplifying financial losses for the stations. The results show that a DoS attack on a single signal of hydrogen tank State of Charge (SOC), hydrogen station demand, and grid services signals can cause a damage of 4-5%, 9-10.5%, and 29% respectively, while a DDoS attack over local station measurements can reduce revenue up to 17%. In both cases, the profitability of the hydrogen station falls below the acceptable margin.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCombustion and Detonation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207