Cited by 535Smart Grid Security and ResilienceNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionFault Detection and Control Systems

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 108 of the 112 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Survey of Physics-Based Attack Detection in Cyber-Physical Systems

Open access

Abstract

Monitoring the "physics" of cyber-physical systems to detect attacks is a growing area of research. In its basic form a security monitor creates time-series models of sensor readings for an industrial control system and identifies anomalies in these measurements in order to identify potentially false control commands or false sensor readings. In this paper, we review previous work on physics-based anomaly detection based on a unified taxonomy that allows us to identify limitations and unexplored challenges, and propose new solutions.

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 · 10.1145/3203245

Cites

108 of 108 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 112 references

4 of the 112 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. Vijay Gupta Bai, 2014, Proceedings of American Control Conference. 3029--3034
  2. Pasqualetti Fabio, 2015, Proceedings of American Control Conference.
  3. Bobba Rakesh B., Proceedings of Workshop on Secure Control Systems, 2010
  4. Checkoway Stephen, Proceedings of the USENIX Security Symposium.
  5. Cheung Steven, 2007, Proceedings of the SCADA Security Scientific Symposium, 46
  6. Chong Michelle S., Proceedings of the American Control Conference (ACC’15)
  7. Falliere Nicolas, stuxnet dossier. White paper
  8. Giani Annarita, 2011, Proceedings of Conference on Smart Grid Communications (SmartGridComm’11)
  9. Henry Nathan, 2013, Proceedings of Workshop on Health Information Technologies.
  10. Ishtiaq Roufa Rob Millerb, 2010, Proceedings of USENIX Security Symposium. 11--13
  11. Kwon Cheolhyeon, 2013, Proceedings of American Control Conference. 3344--3349
  12. Lennart Ljung (Ed.). 1999. System Identification (2nd Ed.): Theory for the User. Prentice Hall PTR Upper Saddle River NJ. Lennart Ljung (Ed.). 1999. System Identification (2nd Ed.): Theory for the User. Prentice Hall PTR Upper Saddle River NJ.
  13. Lun Yuriy Zacchia, 2016, Cyber-physical systems security: A systematic mapping study. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.09641 · arXiv
  14. Miao Fei, Proceedings of Conference on Decision and Control. 5776--5781
  15. 10.5555/1793974.1794131 · DOI
  16. Murguia C., Proceedings of the IEEE 55th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC’16)
  17. 10.5555/2992856.2992858 · DOI
  18. ODVA, 2011, The CIP Networks Library
  19. Rahman Mohammad Ashiqur, Proceedings of Conference on Smart Grid Communications (SmartGridComm’13)
  20. 10.1109/SP.2014.40 · DOI
  21. 10.1145/2808705.2808713 · DOI
  22. Sandberg Henrik, Proceedings of the Workshop on Secure Control Systems.
  23. 10.5555/2984464.2984493 · DOI
  24. Teixeira André, Proceedings of Conference on Decision and Control (CDC’10)
  25. Urbina David, 2016, Proceedings of Singapore Cyber Security R8D Conference (SG-CRC’16), 14
  26. Yong S. Z., Proceedings of the American Control Conference (ACC’16)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Giraldo, J., Urbina, D., Cardenas, A., Valente, J., Faisal, M., Ruths, J., Tippenhauer, N. O., Sandberg, H., & Candell, R.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at Dallas (US)
  • University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, USA
  • Singapore University of Technology and Design (SG)
  • KTH Royal Institute of Technology (SE)
  • National Institute of Standards and Technology (US)
Venue
ACM Computing Surveys
Published
2018-07-25
Volume
51
Issue
4
Pages
1-36
ISSN
  • 0360-0300 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7341
OpenAlex
W2803355698
Cited by
535
References
112
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 65 · 2022: 80 · 2021: 125 · 2020: 82 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 1
FWCI
38.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM Computing Surveys (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • NRF Singapore (NRF2014NCRNCR001-40)
  • Swedish Research Council (2013-5523)
  • NIST (70NANB16H019 and 70NANB17H282)
  • NSF (CNS-1553683 and CNS-1718848)
  • Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Smart Grid Security and Resilience
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Security and Intrusion Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Fault Detection and Control Systems
Keywords
cyber-physical systems, attack detection, industrial control systems, sensor readings, time series models, security monitoring

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