sinconf 2013 _ metamodel for reputation based agents system – case study for electrical...

8/16/2019 SINCONF 2013 _ Metamodel for Reputation Based Agents System – Case Study for Electrical Distribution SCADA Design

1/25

1

Metamodel for Reputation based Agents System –

Case Study for Electrical Distribution SCADA Design

Guy Guemkam, Jonathan Blangenois, Christophe Feltus, Djamel Khadraoui

Laboratoire d’informatique de Paris 6, France

Faculty of Computer Science, University of Namur, Belgium

Public Research Centre Henri Tudor, Luxembourg-Kirchberg, Luxembourg

[email protected]

October 13-16, 2013


2/25

Table of contents

2

• Introduction

• ArchiMate

• Policy concept and trust value

• Case study presentation

• Simulations

• Conclusions

October 2013 SMC IEEE conference


3/25

Table of contents

3

• Introduction

• ArchiMate



• Simulations

• Conclusions



4/25

Introduction

- Critical Infrastructures are essential for the functioning of a

society and economy

4 statements:

- CI are monitored and secured by SCADA systems

- SCADA are deployed using agents whish are governed by

policies

- Agents behave based on their own perception of the evolving

environment and according the perceived trust

- SCADA operates at different abstraction levels of the CI

October 2013 SMC IEEE conference 4


5/25

Introduction

Additionally:

- No integrated approach for designing, managing and

monitoring SCADA systems policies

- No consideration of the trust and reputation existing amongst

the agents

Our goal:

Agents modelling framework based on ArchiMate

Integration of Trust based policy

October 2013 SMC IEEE conference 5


6/25

Table of contents

6

• Introduction

• ArchiMate



• Simulations

• Conclusions



7/25

ArchiMate, the «theory»

- Enterprise architecture metamodel

- 3 abstraction layers (business, application and technical)

- 3 families of concepts: structural, behavioral, informational

- ArchiMate core concepts:

http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/archimate2-doc/

7October 2013 SMC IEEE conference

http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/archimate2-doc/http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/archimate2-doc/http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/archimate2-doc/http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/archimate2-doc/http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/archimate2-doc/http://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/archimate2-doc/


8/25

ArchiMate

metamodel

6/16/2014 Presentation Tudor 8


9/25

Table of contents

9

• Introduction

• ArchiMate


• Policy definition

• ArchiMate specialisation for MAS and with the policy concept

• Policy function of trust


• Simulations

• Conclusions



10/25

Organizational Policy

Application Policy


• The set of rules that achieves the organizat ional strategy

• That governs the execution of behaviours which serve the

realization of organizational services

• That are executed by means of processes, which occurs in a specific

context, symbolized by a configuration of the business object

• The set of rules that achieves the appl icat ion strategy

• That governs the execution of behaviours that serve the

realization of application services• That are executed by means of appl icat ions , which occurs in a

specific context, symbolized by a configuration of data ob jects


11/25

ArchiMate

metamodel

for MAS

Allows defining:

1. Organizational policy2. Application policy

Policy is defined as a

behavioral rule which is

associated to a concept

from the architecture


pplication policy

Organisational policy


12/25

Policy is a function of the trust

12

• The rules defined by the policy is function of the level of trustthat each agent puts in another.

• To derive the level of trustworthiness the agent exploitsinformation provided by probes.

• The implementation of trust mechanisms are translated into

agent through the concept of Policies called Trust Policies.


13/25

Policy and trust value

13

The trust value of a component at an upper level is derived from

sublevels agents.That signifies that, for two given agents A and B, the trust value of agent

B computed by agents A is calculated using the equation adapted

from Guemkam et al. as such:

T AB=OR AB= γDR AB+ (1-γ)(μ1IRi1B+ μ2IRi2B+μ1IRi3B)with μ1+μ2+μ2=1 and 0


14/25

Table of contents

14

• Introduction

• ArchiMate



• Simulations

• Conclusions



15/25

Case Study: Electric power distribution

• The ACE Agent’s collects, aggregates and analyses network information andconfirms alerts are sent to the PIE

• The PIE Agent’s receives a confirmed alert from the ACE, set the severity level

and the extent of the network response (depending on the alert layer). The high

level alert messages are transferred to the RDP.

15Septembre 2013 FARES workshop


16/25

Example of

ArchiMate

Instanciation of the ACE agent

16


17/25

Example of

ArchiMate

Instantiation of all agents

17

Policies


18/25

Table of contents

18

• Introduction

• ArchiMate



• Simulations

• Conclusions



19/25

Simulation / Environment

We have simulated a heterogeneous network of ACE and PIE

agents running the reputation model.

The framework used for the test environment has been developed

in JAVA and simulate MAS network in a graphical environment.

Each created agent is deployed and is only connected to a central

supervisor (Composed of an Agent Manager and a Graph

Supervisor ) that gives him the list of his neighbors depending

of his location on the network with a maximum edge size

between agents.

19


20/25

Simulation Protocole

The protocol used asks ACE agents to send a message containing

the collected data from the probe to the nearest PIE every five

seconds.

Test environment represents a city of 50x50km with a maximum of

5 kilometers connection distance between agents.Simulations have been running several times during 120 seconds

with different load of malicious agents, respectively 10%, 50%

and 90%.

20


21/25

Simulation results

For each load of malicious agents in the network we have collectedthe trust table of the same PIE agent, representing his perception

of his neighbors ACE

As the percentage of malicious growth, the threshold evolvesaccording to the reputation.

Depending on the connection amongst the agent, the reputation

increases, decreases or fluctuates

21

Malicious percentage

10%

50%

90%

ACE Rep ACE Rep ACE Rep

A73 0.8 A73 0.75 A73 0.62 A71

0.86

A71

0.87

A71

0.81

A80

0.69

A80

0.55

A80

0.15

A45 0.72 A45 0.98 A45 0.76

A55 0.91 A55 0.93 A55 0.9 A56

0.93

A56

0.0

A56

0.36

A66 0.82 A66 0.85 A66 0.72

A32 0.8 A32 0.81 A32 0.44 A35

0.84

A35

0.92

A35

0.99

A0 0.73 A0 0.71 A0 0.66


22/25

Table of contents

22

• Introduction

• ArchiMate



• Simulations

• Conclusions



23/25

Conclusions

We have elaborated a specialisation of ArchiMate ® for MASpurpose to enrich the agents society collaborations

An trust based policy has been introduced and described to

enhance the modelling of the agent evolution in its

environment

Finally, we have simulated a heterogeneous network of ACE andPIE agents running the reputation model with different load of

malicious agents.

As future works, additional validations are expected in the next

months on larger scale infrastructures. In parallel, a supporting

tool is being developed.



24/25

Acknowledgments

The research described in this paper is funded by the

CockpitCI research project within the 7th frameworkProgramme (FP7) of the European Union (EU) (topic SEC-

2011.2.5-1 – Cyber-attacks against critical infrastructures –

Capability Project).


25/25

Thank you for your attention !

Any questions ?

sinconf 2013 _ metamodel for reputation based agents system – case study for electrical...

Documents