PreprintCited by 13Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningNetwork Security and Intrusion DetectionPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in Data

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Securing Distributed Network Digital Twin Systems Against Model Poisoning Attacks

Open access

Abstract

In the era of 5G and beyond, the increasing complexity of wireless networks necessitates innovative frameworks for efficient management and deployment. Digital twins (DTs), embodying real-time monitoring, predictive configurations, and enhanced decision-making capabilities, stand out as a promising solution in this context. Within a time-series data-driven framework that effectively maps wireless networks into digital counterparts, encapsulated by integrated vertical and horizontal twinning phases, this study investigates the security challenges in distributed network DT systems, which potentially undermine the reliability of subsequent network applications such as wireless traffic forecasting. Specifically, we consider a minimal-knowledge scenario for all attackers, in that they do not have access to network data and other specialized knowledge, yet can interact with previous iterations of server-level models. In this context, we spotlight a novel fake traffic injection attack designed to compromise a distributed network DT system for wireless traffic prediction. In response, we then propose a defense mechanism, termed global-local inconsistency detection (GLID), to counteract various model poisoning threats. GLID strategically removes abnormal model parameters that deviate beyond a particular percentile range, thereby fortifying the security of network twinning process. Through extensive experiments on real-world wireless traffic datasets, our experimental evaluations show that both our attack and defense strategies significantly outperform existing baselines, highlighting the importance of security measures in the design and implementation of DTs for 5G and beyond network systems.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2407.01917

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Metadata

Authors
Zhang, Z., Fang, M., Chen, M., Li, G., Lin, X., & Liu, Y.
Affiliations
  • North Carolina State University (US)
  • University of Louisville (US)
  • University of Miami (US)
  • Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
Volume
11
Issue
21
Pages
34312-34324
ISSN
2327-4662 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4400944318
Cited by
13
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 1
FWCI
1.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Internet of Things Journal (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Science Foundation (2312138, 2312139, 2350076, 2350075)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Network Security and Intrusion Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
Keywords
digital twin, model poisoning, anomaly detection, 5G, time series, network security

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