CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 142Information and Cyber SecurityMaritime Navigation and SafetyRisk and Safety Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A novel cyber-risk assessment method for ship systems

Open access
Bolbot, Victor, Theotokatos, Gerasimos, Boulougouris, Evangelos, Vassalos, Dracos·2020·Safety Science
DOI 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104908
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Recent advances in the maritime industry include research and development of new sophisticated ships with a number of smart functionalities and enhanced autonomy. The new functions and autonomy levels though come at the cost of increased connectivity. This results in increased ship vulnerability to cyber-attacks, which may lead to financial loss, environmental pollution, safety accidents. The aim of this study is to propose a novel method for cybersecurity risk assessment of ship systems. In this novel method, the Cyber-Preliminary Hazard Analysis method steps are enriched with new steps supporting the identification of cyber-attack scenarios and the risk assessment implementation. The proposed method is applied for the cyber-risk assessment and design enhancement of the navigation and propulsion systems of an inland waterways autonomous vessel. The results demonstrate that several critical scenarios can arise on the investigated autonomous vessel due to known vulnerabilities. These can be sufficiently controlled by introducing appropriate modifications to the systems design.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104908

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. ABS, 2018. Cybersecurity implementation for the marine and offshore industries, In: ABS (Ed.), ABS CyberSafetyTM VOLUME 2.
  2. Alguliyev, 2018, Cyber-physical systems and their security issues, Comput. Industry, 100, 212, 10.1016/j.compind.2018.04.017 · DOI
  3. Bolbot, V., Puisa, R., Theotokatos, G., Boulougouris, E., Vassalos, D., 2019a. A comparative safety assessment for DC and DC with hybrid power systems in a windfarm SOV using STPA, In: Banda, O. (Ed.), European STAMP Workshop & Conference, Helsinki, Finland.
  4. Bolbot, V., Theotokatos, G., Boulougouris, E., Psarros, G., Hamann, R., 2020. A novel method for safety analysis of Cyber-Physical Systems - Application to a ship exhaust gas scrubber system. Safety. · DOI
  5. Bolbot, 2019, Vulnerabilities and safety assurance methods in Cyber-Physical Systems: a comprehensive review, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety, 182, 179, 10.1016/j.ress.2018.09.004 · DOI
  6. Bolbot, V., Theotokatos, G., Vassalos, D., 2018. Using system-theoretic process analysis and event tree analysis for creation of a fault tree of blackout in the Diesel-Electric Propulsion system of a cruise ship. In: International Marine Design Conference XIII. CRC Press, Helsinki, Finland, pp. 691–699.
  7. Boloor, 2020, Attacking vision-based perception in end-to-end autonomous driving models, J. Syst. Arch., 10.1016/j.sysarc.2020.101766 · DOI
  8. Borio, D., Driscoll, C.O., Fortuny, J., 2012. GNSS Jammers: Effects and countermeasures. In: 2012 6th ESA Workshop on Satellite Navigation Technologies (Navitec 2012) & European Workshop on GNSS Signals and Signal Processing, pp. 1–7. · DOI
  9. Boyes, H., Isbell, R., 2017. Code of practice - cyber security for ships, In: Technology, T.I.o.E.a. (Ed.), London, United.
  10. Bozdal, M., Samie, M., Jennions, I., 2018. A survey on CAN bus protocol: attacks, challenges, and potential solutions. In: 2018 International Conference on Computing, Electronics & Communications Engineering (iCCECE). IEEE, pp. 201–205. · DOI
  11. BV, 2018. Rules on Cyber Security for the Classification of Marine Units, In: BV (Ed.), NR 659 DT R00, Paris, France.
  12. Cormier, 2020, Integrating cybersecurity in hazard and risk analyses, J. Loss Prevent. Process Indust., 64, 10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104044 · DOI
  13. DNV GL, 2019. Part 6 Additional class notations Chapter 5 Equipment and design features Section 21 Cyber security. In: GL, D. (Ed.), Part 6 Chapter 5 Section 21.
  14. EBIOS, 2019. EBIOS Risk Manager. In: d’information, A.n.d.l.s.d.s. (Ed.), Paris, France.
  15. El-Rewini, 2019, Cybersecurity challenges in vehicular communications, Vehicular Commun.
  16. Eloranta, S., Whitehead, A., 2016. Safety aspects of autonomous ships. In: Gl, D.N.V. (Ed.), 6th International Maritime Conference, Germany, Hamburg, pp. 168–175.
  17. Farid, 2018, Impact and detection of GPS jammers and countermeasures against jamming, Int. J. Scientific Eng. Res., 9, 47
  18. Glomsrud, J.A., Xie, J., 2019. A structured STPA safety and security co-analysis framework for autonomous ships. In: Beer, M., Zio, E. (Eds.), European Safety and Reliability conference, Germany, Hannover. · DOI
  19. Guerar, 2020, CirclePIN: A novel authentication mechanism for smartwatches to prevent unauthorized access to IoT devices, ACM Trans. Cyber-Phys. Syst., 4, 1, 10.1145/3365995 · DOI
  20. Gunes, 2014, A survey on concepts, applications, and challenges in cyber-physical systems, KSII Trans. Internet Inform. Syst., 8, 4242
  21. Guzman, N.H.C., Kufoalor, D.K.M., Kozin, I., Lundteigen, M.A., 2019. Combined safety and security risk analysis using the UFoI-E method: A case study of an autonomous surface vessel. In: 29th European Safety and Reliability Conference, pp. 4099–4106. · DOI
  22. Höyhtyä, M., Huusko, J., Kiviranta, M., Solberg, K., Rokka, J., 2017. Connectivity for autonomous ships: Architecture, use cases, and research challenges. In: 2017 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology Convergence (ICTC). IEEE, pp. 345–350. · DOI
  23. IMO, 2017. Measures to enhance maritime security MSC-FAL.1/Circ.3, In: committee, M.s. (Ed.).
  24. Kang, T.U., Song, H.M., Jeong, S., Kim, H.K., 2018. Automated reverse engineering and attack for CAN using OBD-II. In: 2018 IEEE 88th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC-Fall). IEEE, pp. 1–7. · DOI
  25. Kavallieratos, 2020, SafeSec Tropos: Joint security and safety requirements elicitation, Comput. Stand. Interfaces, 70, 10.1016/j.csi.2020.103429 · DOI
  26. Lund, M.S., Hareide, O.S., Jøsok, Ø., 2018. An attack on an integrated navigation system. · DOI
  27. Maritime affairs directorate of France, 2016. Cyber security Assessment and protection of ships, In: Ministry of environment, e.a.t.s.o.F. (Ed.).
  28. Newman, N., 2019. Cyber pirates terrorising the high seas. Engineering and Technology. · DOI
  29. Shang, 2019, Information security risk assessment method for ship control system based on fuzzy sets and attack trees, Security Communic. Networks, 2019, 11
  30. Shinohara, 2017, On the vulnerabilities due to manipulative zero-stealthy attacks in cyber-physical systems, SICE J. Control, Measur., Syst. Integr., 10, 563, 10.9746/jcmsi.10.563 · DOI
  31. Svilicic, 2019, Assessing ship cyber risks: a framework and case study of ECDIS security, WMU J. Maritime Affairs, 18, 509, 10.1007/s13437-019-00183-x · DOI
  32. Svilicic, 2019, Towards a cyber secure shipboard radar, J. Navigation, 1
  33. Tam, K., Jones, K., 2018. Cyber-risk assessment for autonomous ships. In: 2018 International Conference on Cyber Security and Protection of Digital Services (Cyber Security). IEEE, pp. 1–8. · DOI
  34. Tam, 2019, MaCRA: a model-based framework for maritime cyber-risk assessment, WMU J. Maritime Affairs, 18, 129, 10.1007/s13437-019-00162-2 · DOI
  35. Tariq, S., Lee, S., Kim, H.K., Woo, S.S., 2020. CAN-ADF: The Controller Area Network Attack Detection Framework. Computers & Security, 101857. · DOI
  36. Tu, J., Ren, M., Manivasagam, S., Liang, M., Yang, B., Du, R., Cheng, F., Urtasun, R., 2020. Physically Realizable Adversarial Examples for LiDAR Object Detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.00543. · DOI
  37. Wang, 2020, Modeling and analyzing cyberattack effects on connected automated vehicular platoons, Transp. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol., 115, 10.1016/j.trc.2020.102625 · DOI
  38. Yara, 2018. Yara Birkeland press kit.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 142

Metadata

Authors
Bolbot, V., Theotokatos, G., Boulougouris, E., & Vassalos, D.
Affiliations
University of Strathclyde (GB)
Corresponding author
Bolbot, Victor
ORCID
Venue
Safety Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-11
Volume
131
Pages
104908
ISSN
0925-7535 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104908
OpenAlex
W3044806866
Cited by
142
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 15
FWCI
10.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Safety Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Strathprints: The University of Strathclyde institutional repository (University of Strathclyde) (submittedVersion)
Funders
European Commission
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Ocean Engineering › Maritime Navigation and Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Risk and Safety Analysis
Keywords
cybersecurity risk assessment, ship systems, cyberattack scenarios, autonomous ships, inland waterways, navigation systems, propulsion systems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review