skip to main content
10.1145/3538969.3543814acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaresConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Risk Assessments Considering Safety, Security, and Their Interdependencies in OT Environments

Authors Info & Claims
Published:23 August 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Information Technology (IT) and Operational Technology (OT) are converging further, which increases the number of interdependencies of safety and security risks arising in industrial architectures. Cyber attacks interfering safety functionality may lead to serious injuries as a consequence. Intentionally triggering a safety function may introduce a security vulnerability during the emergency procedure, e.g., by opening emergency exit doors leading to enabling unauthorized physical access. This paper introduces a risk evaluation methodology to prioritize and manage identified threats considering security, safety, and their interdepedencies. The presented methodology uses metrics commonly used in the industry to increase its applicability and enable the combination with other risk assessment approaches. These metrics are Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS), Security Level (SL) from the standard IEC 62443 and Safety Integrity Level (SIL) from the standard IEC 61508. Conceptional similarities of those metrics are considered during the risk calculation, including an identified relation between CVSS and SL. Besides this relation, the skill level and resources of threat actors, threats enabling multiple identified attacks, the SIL of safety-relevant components affected, business criticality of the targeted asset, and the SL-T of the zone targeted by the attack are considered for risk evaluation. The industrial architecture to be analyzed is separated into zones and conduits according to IEC 62443, enabling the analyzed system to be compliant with its requirements.

References

  1. Sadek Rayan Aktouche, Mohamed Sallak, Abdelmadjid Bouabdallah, and Walter Schön. 2021. Towards Reconciling Safety and Security Risk Analysis Processes in Railway Remote Driving. In 2021 5th International Conference on System Reliability and Safety (ICSRS). 148–154. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSRS53853.2021.9660764Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Blake E. Strom and Joseph A. Battaglia and Michael S. Kemmerer and William Kupersanin and Douglas P. Miller and Craig Wampler and Sean M. Whitley and Ross D. Wolf. 2017. Finding Cyber Threats with ATT&CK-Based Analytics. Technical Report. The MITRE Corporation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Clint Bodungen, Bryan Singer, Aaron Shbeeb, Kyle Wilhoit, and Stephen Hilt. 2016. Hacking Exposed Industrial Control Systems: ICS and SCADA Security Secrets & Solutions (1 ed.). McGraw-Hill Education, New York. 544 pages. https://doi.org/10.1036/9781259589720Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Patrick Denzler, Siegfried Hollerer, Thomas Frühwirth, and Wolfgang Kastner. 2021. Identification of security threats, safety hazards, and interdependencies in industrial edge computing. In 2021 IEEE/ACM Symposium on Edge Computing (SEC). 397–402. https://doi.org/10.1145/3453142.3493508Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. FIRST (FIRST.Org, Inc.). 2019. Common Vulnerability Scoring System version 3.1, Specification Document, Revision 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Marcus Geiger, Jochen Bauer, Michael Masuch, and Jörg Franke. 2020. An Analysis of Black Energy 3, Crashoverride, and Trisis, Three Malware Approaches Targeting Operational Technology Systems. In 2020 25th IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA), Vol. 1. 1537–1543. https://doi.org/10.1109/ETFA46521.2020.9212128Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Siegfried Hollerer, Clara Fischer, Bernhard Brenner, Maximilian Papa, Sebastian Schlund, Wolfgang Kastner, Joachim Fabini, and Tanja Zseby. 2021. Cobot attack: a security assessment exemplified by a pecific collaborative robot. Procedia Manufacturing 54 (2021), 191–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2021.07.029 10th CIRP Sponsored Conference on Digital Enterprise Technologies (DET 2020) – Digital Technologies as Enablers of Industrial Competitiveness and Sustainability.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Siegfried Hollerer, Wolfgang Kastner, and Thilo Sauter. 2021. Safety und Security - ein Spannungsfeld in der industriellen Praxis. e & i Elektrotechnik und Informationstechnik 138, 449–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00502-021-00930-0Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Siegfried Hollerer, Wolfgang Kastner, and Thilo Sauter. 2021. Towards a Threat Modeling Approach Addressing Security and Safety in OT Environments. In 2021 17th IEEE International Conference on Factory Communication Systems (WFCS). 37–40. https://doi.org/10.1109/WFCS46889.2021.9483591Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Eric Hutchins, Michael Cloppert, and Rohan Amin. 2011. Intelligence-Driven Computer Network Defense Informed by Analysis of Adversary Campaigns and Intrusion Kill Chains. Leading Issues in Information Warfare & Security Research 1 (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). 2020. IEC 62443, Security for industrial automation and control systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 2010. ISO 12100 Safety of machinery — General principles for design — Risk assessment and risk reduction.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 2015. ISO 13849 Safety of machinery — Safety-related parts of control systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Juergen Jasperneite, Thilo Sauter, and Martin Wollschlaeger. 2020. Why We Need Automation Models: Handling Complexity in Industry 4.0 and the Internet of Things. IEEE Industrial Electronics Magazine 14, 1 (2020), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIE.2019.2947119Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Jin-woo Myung ; Sunghyuck Hong. 2019. ICS malware Triton attack and countermeasures.. In International Journal of Emerging Multidisciplinary Research.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Marjan Keramati. 2017. A novel system for quantifying the danger degree of computer network attacks. In 2017 IEEE 4th International Conference on Knowledge-Based Engineering and Innovation (KBEI). https://doi.org/10.1109/KBEI.2017.8324906Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Yazid Merah and Tayeb Kenaza. 2021. Ontology-Based Cyber Risk Monitoring Using Cyber Threat Intelligence. In The 16th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (Vienna, Austria) (ARES 2021). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 88, 8 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3465481.3470024Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Marco Rocchetto and Nils Ole Tippenhauer. 2016. On Attacker Models and Profiles for Cyber-Physical Systems. In Computer Security – ESORICS 2016, Ioannis Askoxylakis, Sotiris Ioannidis, Sokratis Katsikas, and Catherine Meadows (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 427–449.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Jonathan Spring, Eric Hatleback, Allen Householder, Art Manion, and Deana Shick. 2021. Time to Change the CVSS?IEEE Security Privacy 19, 2 (2021), 74–78. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSEC.2020.3044475Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Max van Haastrecht, Injy Sarhan, Alireza Shojaifar, Louis Baumgartner, Wissam Mallouli, and Marco Spruit. 2021. A Threat-Based Cybersecurity Risk Assessment Approach Addressing SME Needs. In The 16th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (Vienna, Austria) (ARES 2021). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 158, 12 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3465481.3469199Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Víctor Mayoral Vilches, Endika Gil-Uriarte, Irati Zamalloa Ugarte, Gorka Olalde Mendia, Rodrigo Izquierdo Pisón, Laura Alzola Kirschgens, Asier Bilbao Calvo, Alejandro Hernández Cordero, Lucas Apa, and César Cerrudo. 2021. Towards an open standard for assessing the severity of robot security vulnerabilities, the Robot Vulnerability Scoring System (RVSS). arxiv:1807.10357 [cs.RO]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Martin Wollschlaeger, Thilo Sauter, and Juergen Jasperneite. 2017. The Future of Industrial Communication: Automation Networks in the Era of the Internet of Things and Industry 4.0. IEEE Industrial Electronics Magazine 11, 1 (2017), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIE.2017.2649104Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Shengwei Yi, Hongwei Wang, Yangyang Ma, Feng Xie, Puhan Zhang, and Liqing Di. 2018. A Safety-Security Assessment Approach for Communication-Based Train Control (CBTC) Systems Based on the Extended Fault Tree. In 2018 27th International Conference on Computer Communication and Networks (ICCCN). 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCCN.2018.8487464Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Awad Younis, Yashwant K. Malaiya, and Indrajit Ray. 2016. Evaluating CVSS Base Score Using Vulnerability Rewards Programs. In ICT Systems Security and Privacy Protection, Jaap-Henk Hoepmanand Stefan Katzenbeisser (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 62–75.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Risk Assessments Considering Safety, Security, and Their Interdependencies in OT Environments

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        ARES '22: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security
        August 2022
        1371 pages
        ISBN:9781450396707
        DOI:10.1145/3538969

        Copyright © 2022 Owner/Author

        This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 23 August 2022

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate228of451submissions,51%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format