skip to main content
research-article

Deep Learning-based Anomaly Detection in Cyber-physical Systems: Progress and Opportunities

Published:25 May 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Anomaly detection is crucial to ensure the security of cyber-physical systems (CPS). However, due to the increasing complexity of CPSs and more sophisticated attacks, conventional anomaly detection methods, which face the growing volume of data and need domain-specific knowledge, cannot be directly applied to address these challenges. To this end, deep learning-based anomaly detection (DLAD) methods have been proposed. In this article, we review state-of-the-art DLAD methods in CPSs. We propose a taxonomy in terms of the type of anomalies, strategies, implementation, and evaluation metrics to understand the essential properties of current methods. Further, we utilize this taxonomy to identify and highlight new characteristics and designs in each CPS domain. Also, we discuss the limitations and open problems of these methods. Moreover, to give users insights into choosing proper DLAD methods in practice, we experimentally explore the characteristics of typical neural models, the workflow of DLAD methods, and the running performance of DL models. Finally, we discuss the deficiencies of DL approaches, our findings, and possible directions to improve DLAD methods and motivate future research.

References

  1. Sebastian Berg. 2020. NumPy. https://numpy.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Chuadhry Mujeeb Ahmed, Gauthama Raman M. R., and Aditya P. Mathur. 2020. Challenges in machine learning based approaches for real-time anomaly detection in industrial control systems. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM on Cyber-Physical System Security Workshop (Taipei, Taiwan) (CPSS ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 23--29. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3384941.3409588Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Salman Ahmed, Ya Xiao, Kevin Z. Snow, Gang Tan, Fabian Monrose, and Danfeng (Daphne) Yao. 2020. Methodologies for quantifying (re-)randomization security and timing under JIT-ROP. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 1803--1820. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3372297.3417248Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Luai Al Shalabi and Zyad Shaaban. 2006. Normalization as a preprocessing engine for data mining and the approach of preference matrix. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Dependability of Computer Systems. IEEE, 207--214.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Mario Almeida, Stefanos Laskaridis, Ilias Leontiadis, Stylianos I. Venieris, and Nicholas D. Lane. 2019. EmBench: Quantifying performance variations of deep neural networks across modern commodity devices. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Deep Learning for Mobile Systems and Applications. 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Kasun Amarasinghe and Milos Manic. 2018. Improving user trust on deep neural networks based intrusion detection systems. In Proceedings of the 44th Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society. IEEE, 3262--3268.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. CNN. 2020. Car assembly line robot kills worker in Germany. Retrieved from: https://www.cnn.com/2015/07/02/europe/germany-volkswagen-robot-kills-worker/index.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. T. Athay, R. Podmore, and S. Virmani. 1979. A practical method for the direct analysis of transient stability. IEEE Trans. Pow. Apparat. Syst.2 (1979), 573--584.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Arian Bär, Alessandro Finamore, Pedro Casas, Lukasz Golab, and Marco Mellia. 2014. Large-scale network traffic monitoring with DBStream, a system for rolling big data analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data’14). IEEE, 165--170.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Sagnik Basumallik, Rui Ma, and Sara Eftekharnejad. 2019. Packet-data anomaly detection in PMU-based state estimator using convolutional neural network. Int. J. Electric. Power Energy Syst. 107 (2019), 690--702.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Debby Bezzina and James Sayer. 2014. Safety pilot model deployment: Test conductor team report. Report No. DOT HS 812 (2014), 171.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Karl Biron, Wael Bazzaza, Khalid Yaqoob, Amjad Gawanmeh, and Claude Fachkha. 2020. A big data fusion to profile CPS security threats against operational technology. In Proceedings of the IEEE 21st International Symposium on A World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks (WoWMoM’20). IEEE, 397--402.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Andrea Borghesi, Andrea Bartolini, Michele Lombardi, Michela Milano, and Luca Benini. 2019. Anomaly detection using autoencoders in high performance computing systems. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 33. 9428--9433.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Markus M. Breunig, Hans-Peter Kriegel, Raymond T. Ng, and Jörg Sander. 2000. LOF: Identifying density-based local outliers. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. 93--104.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Mikel Canizo, Isaac Triguero, Angel Conde, and Enrique Onieva. 2019. Multi-head CNN–RNN for multi-time series anomaly detection: An industrial case study. Neurocomputing 363 (2019), 246--260.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Z. Berkay Celik, Earlence Fernandes, Eric Pauley, Gang Tan, and Patrick McDaniel. 2019. Program analysis of commodity IoT applications for security and privacy: Challenges and opportunities. ACM Comput. Surv. 52, 4 (2019), 1--30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Raghavendra Chalapathy and Sanjay Chawla. 2019. Deep learning for anomaly detection: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.03407 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Varun Chandola, Arindam Banerjee, and Vipin Kumar. 2009. Anomaly detection: A survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 41, 3 (2009), 15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Long Cheng, Ke Tian, and Danfeng Yao. 2017. Orpheus: Enforcing cyber-physical execution semantics to defend against data-oriented attacks. In Proceedings of the 33rd Computer Security Applications Conference. 315--326.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Yulia Cherdantseva, Pete Burnap, Andrew Blyth, Peter Eden, Kevin Jones, Hugh Soulsby, and Kristan Stoddart. 2016. A review of cyber security risk assessment methods for SCADA systems. Comput. Secur. 56 (2016), 1--27.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Kyong-Tak Cho and Kang G. Shin. 2016. Fingerprinting electronic control units for vehicle intrusion detection. In Proceedings of the 25th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security’16). 911--927.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Alysha M. De Livera, Rob J. Hyndman, and Ralph D. Snyder. 2011. Forecasting time series with complex seasonal patterns using exponential smoothing. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 106, 496 (2011), 1513--1527.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Qingyu Deng and Jian Sun. 2018. False data injection attack detection in a power grid using RNN. In Proceedings of the 44th Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society. IEEE, 5983--5988.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Min Du, Feifei Li, Guineng Zheng, and Vivek Srikumar. 2017. DeepLog: Anomaly detection and diagnosis from system logs through deep learning. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 1285--1298.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Benedikt Eiteneuer, Nemanja Hranisavljevic, and Oliver Niggemann. 2019. Dimensionality reduction and anomaly detection for CPPS data using autoencoder. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIT.2019.8755116Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Mellitus Ezeme, Akramul Azim, and Qusay H. Mahmoud. 2017. An imputation-based augmented anomaly detection from large traces of operating system events. In Proceedings of the 4th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Big Data Computing, Applications and Technologies. 43--52.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Mellitus O. Ezeme, Qusay H. Mahmoud, and Akramul Azim. 2018. Hierarchical attention-based anomaly detection model for embedded operating systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE 24th International Conference on Embedded and Real-time Computing Systems and Applications (RTCSA’18). IEEE, 225--231.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Okwudili M. Ezeme, Michael Lescisin, Qusay H. Mahmoud, and Akramul Azim. 2019. DeepAnom: An ensemble deep framework for anomaly detection in system processes. In Proceedings of the Canadian Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Springer, 549--555.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Okwudili M. Ezeme, Qusay H. Mahmoud, and Akramul Azim. 2019. Dream: Deep recursive attentive model for anomaly detection in kernel events. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 18860--18870.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Cheng Fan, Fu Xiao, Yang Zhao, and Jiayuan Wang. 2018. Analytical investigation of autoencoder-based methods for unsupervised anomaly detection in building energy data. Appl. Energy 211 (2018), 1123--1135.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Cheng Feng, Tingting Li, and Deeph Chana. 2017. Multi-level anomaly detection in industrial control systems via package signatures and LSTM networks. In Proceedings of the 47th IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN’17). IEEE, 261--272.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. P. Ferrari, S. Rinaldi, E. Sisinni, F. Colombo, F. Ghelfi, D. Maffei, and M. Malara. 2019. Performance evaluation of full-cloud and edge-cloud architectures for industrial IoT anomaly detection based on deep learning. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Metrology for Industry 4.0 and IoT (MetroInd4.0 & IoT’19). IEEE, 420--425.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. FireEye. 2020. A View into the Top 20 Cyber Attacks on ICS Networks | FireEye. Retrieved from: https://www.fireeye.com/solutions/industrial-systems-and-critical-infrastructure-security/wp-top-20-cyberattacks.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Flightradar24. 2019. Live Flight Tracker - Real-Time Flight Tracker Map. Retrieved from: https://www.flightradar24.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Amin Ghafouri, Waseem Abbas, Aron Laszka, Yevgeniy Vorobeychik, and Xenofon Koutsoukos. 2016. Optimal thresholds for anomaly-based intrusion detection in dynamical environments. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Decision and Game Theory for Security. Springer, 415--434.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Jairo Giraldo, David Urbina, Alvaro Cardenas, Junia Valente, Mustafa Faisal, Justin Ruths, Nils Ole Tippenhauer, Henrik Sandberg, and Richard Candell. 2018. A survey of physics-based attack detection in cyber-physical systems. ACM Comput. Surv. 51, 4 (2018), 1--36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Ioana Giurgiu and Anika Schumann. 2019. Additive explanations for anomalies detected from multivariate temporal data. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 2245--2248.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Jonathan Goh, Sridhar Adepu, Khurum Nazir Junejo, and Aditya Mathur. 2016. A dataset to support research in the design of secure water treatment systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Critical Information Infrastructures Security. Springer, 88--99.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Jonathan Goh, Sridhar Adepu, Marcus Tan, and Zi Shan Lee. 2017. Anomaly detection in cyber physical systems using recurrent neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE 18th International Symposium on High Assurance Systems Engineering (HASE’17). IEEE, 140--145.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Dong Gong, Lingqiao Liu, Vuong Le, Budhaditya Saha, Moussa Reda Mansour, Svetha Venkatesh, and Anton van den Hengel. 2019. Memorizing normality to detect anomaly: Memory-augmented deep autoencoder for unsupervised anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. 1705--1714.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Lachlan Gunn, Peter Smet, Edward Arbon, and Mark D. McDonnell. 2018. Anomaly detection in satellite communications systems using LSTM networks. In Proceedings of the Military Communications and Information Systems Conference (MilCIS’18). IEEE, 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Edan Habler and Asaf Shabtai. 2018. Using LSTM encoder-decoder algorithm for detecting anomalous ADS-B messages. Comput. Secur. 78 (2018), 155--173.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Waqas Haider, Jiankun Hu, Yi Xie, Xinghuo Yu, and Qianhong Wu. 2017. Detecting anomalous behavior in cloud servers by nested arc hidden SEMI-Markov model with state summarization. IEEE Trans. Big Data 5, 3 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Y. He, G. Meng, K. Chen, X. Hu, and J. He. 2020. Towards security threats of deep learning systems: A survey. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. (Nov. 2020). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2020.3034721Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Ryan Heartfield, George Loukas, Sanja Budimir, Anatolij Bezemskij, Johnny R. J. Fontaine, Avgoustinos Filippoupolitis, and Etienne Roesch. 2018. A taxonomy of cyber-physical threats and impact in the smart home. Comput. Secur. 78 (2018), 398--428.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Yi Huang, Mohammad Esmalifalak, Huy Nguyen, Rong Zheng, Zhu Han, Husheng Li, and Lingyang Song. 2013. Bad data injection in smart grid: Attack and defense mechanisms. IEEE Commun. Mag. 51, 1 (2013), 27--33.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Kyle Hundman, Valentino Constantinou, Christopher Laporte, Ian Colwell, and Tom Soderstrom. 2018. Detecting spacecraft anomalies using LSTMs and nonparametric dynamic thresholding. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. ACM, 387--395.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Jun Inoue, Yoriyuki Yamagata, Yuqi Chen, Christopher M. Poskitt, and Jun Sun. 2017. Anomaly detection for a water treatment system using unsupervised machine learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW’17). IEEE, 1058--1065.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Aya Abdelsalam Ismail, Mohamed Gunady, Hector Corrada Bravo, and Soheil Feizi. 2020. Benchmarking deep learning interpretability in time series predictions. Adv. Neural Inf. Proc. Syst. 33 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. iTrust Labs. 2019. iTrust Labs_Dataset Info. Retrieved from: https://itrust.sutd.edu.sg/itrust_labs_datasets/dataset_info/#swat.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Camil Jichici, Bogdan Groza, and Pal-Stefan Murvay. 2018. Examining the use of neural networks for intrusion detection in controller area networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Security for Information Technology and Communications. Springer, 109--125.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Kaspersky. 2019. Threat landscape for industrial automation systems, H1 2019. Retrieved from: https://ics-cert.kaspersky.com/reports/2019/09/30/threat-landscape-for-industrial-automation-systems-h1-2019/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Haider Adnan Khan, Nader Sehatbakhsh, Luong N. Nguyen, Milos Prvulovic, and Alenka Zajić. 2019. Malware detection in embedded systems using neural network model for electromagnetic side-channel signals. J. Hardw. Syst. Secur. 3, 4 (2019), 305--318.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Eshaan Khanapuri, Tarun Chintalapati, Rajnikant Sharma, and Ryan Gerdes. 2019. Learning-based adversarial agent detection and identification in cyber physical systems applied to autonomous vehicular platoon. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 5th International Workshop on Software Engineering for Smart Cyber-Physical Systems (SEsCPS’19). IEEE, 39--45.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Tung Kieu, Bin Yang, and Christian S. Jensen. 2018. Outlier detection for multidimensional time series using deep neural networks. In Proceedings of the 19th IEEE International Conference on Mobile Data Management (MDM’18). IEEE, 125--134.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Diederik P. Kingma and Max Welling. 2013. Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Oliver Kosut, Liyan Jia, Robert J. Thomas, and Lang Tong. 2011. Malicious data attacks on the smart grid. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2, 4 (2011), 645--658.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Moshe Kravchik and Asaf Shabtai. 2018. Detecting cyber attacks in industrial control systems using convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Cyber-physical Systems Security and PrivaCy. ACM, 72--83.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Adrien Legrand, Brad Niepceron, Alain Cournier, and Harold Trannois. 2018. Study of autoencoder neural networks for anomaly detection in connected buildings. In Proceedings of the IEEE Global Conference on Internet of Things (GCIoT’18). IEEE, 1--5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  60. Dan Li, Dacheng Chen, Baihong Jin, Lei Shi, Jonathan Goh, and See-Kiong Ng. 2019. MAD-GAN: Multivariate anomaly detection for time series data with generative adversarial networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks. Springer, 703--716.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Yidong Li, Li Zhang, Zhuo Lv, and Wei Wang. 2021. Detecting anomalies in intelligent vehicle charging and station power supply systems with multi-head attention models. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transport. Syst. 22, 1 (2021), 555--564.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Zhe Li, Jingyue Li, Yi Wang, and Kesheng Wang. 2019. A deep learning approach for anomaly detection based on SAE and LSTM in mechanical equipment. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 103, 1 (2019), 499--510.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Benjamin Lindemann, Fabian Fesenmayr, Nasser Jazdi, and Michael Weyrich. 2019. Anomaly detection in discrete manufacturing using self-learning approaches. Procedia CIRP 79 (2019), 313--318.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. Yao Liu, Peng Ning, and Michael K. Reiter. 2011. False data injection attacks against state estimation in electric power grids. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 14, 1 (2011), 13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Yuriy Zacchia Lun, Alessandro D’Innocenzo, Francesco Smarra, Ivano Malavolta, and Maria Domenica Di Benedetto. 2019. State of the art of cyber-physical systems security: An automatic control perspective. J. Syst. Softw. 149 (2019), 174--216.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. Larry M. Manevitz and Malik Yousef. 2001. One-class SVMs for document classification. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2, Dec. (2001), 139--154.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Aditya P. Mathur and Nils Ole Tippenhauer. 2016. SWaT: A water treatment testbed for research and training on ICS security. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Cyber-physical Systems for Smart Water Networks (CySWater’16). IEEE, 31--36.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. MATPOWER. 2019. Open-source tools for electric power system simulation and optimization. Retrieved from: https://matpower.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Dongyu Meng and Hao Chen. 2017. Magnet: A two-pronged defense against adversarial examples. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 135--147.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Robert Mitchell and Ing-Ray Chen. 2014. A survey of intrusion detection techniques for cyber-physical systems. ACM Comput. Surv. 46, 4 (2014), 1--29.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. Yilin Mo and Bruno Sinopoli. 2010. False data injection attacks in control systems. In Preprints of the 1st Workshop on Secure Control Systems. 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Yilin Mo and Bruno Sinopoli. 2012. Integrity attacks on cyber-physical systems. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on High Confidence Networked Systems. 47--54.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Mehdi Mohammadi, Ala Al-Fuqaha, Sameh Sorour, and Mohsen Guizani. 2018. Deep learning for IoT big data and streaming analytics: A survey. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 20, 4 (2018), 2923--2960.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. Khosrow Moslehi and Ranjit Kumar. 2010. A reliability perspective of the smart grid. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 1, 1 (2010), 57--64.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  75. Anvardh Nanduri and Lance Sherry. 2016. Anomaly detection in aircraft data using recurrent neural networks (RNN). In Proceedings of the Integrated Communications Navigation and Surveillance (ICNS’16). IEEE, 5C2--1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  76. Sandeep Nair Narayanan, Anupam Joshi, and Ranjan Bose. 2020. ABATe: Automatic behavioral abstraction technique to detect anomalies in smartcyber-physical systems. IEEE Trans. Depend. Sec. Comput. (2020). DOI:10.1109/TDSC.2020.3034331Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. Sajid Nazir, Shushma Patel, and Dilip Patel. 2017. Assessing and augmenting SCADA cyber security: A survey of techniques. Comput. Secur. 70 (2017), 436--454.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  78. Xiangyu Niu, Jiangnan Li, Jinyuan Sun, and Kevin Tomsovic. 2019. Dynamic detection of false data injection attack in smart grid using deep learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE Power & Energy Society Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference (ISGT’19). IEEE, 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  79. Daehyung Park, Yuuna Hoshi, and Charles C. Kemp. 2018. A multimodal anomaly detector for robot-assisted feeding using an LSTM-based variational autoencoder. IEEE Robot. Automat. Lett. 3, 3 (2018), 1544--1551.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  80. Neehar Peri, Pirazh Khorramshahi, Sai Saketh Rambhatla, Vineet Shenoy, Saumya Rawat, Jun-Cheng Chen, and Rama Chellappa. 2020. Towards real-time systems for vehicle re-identification, multi-camera tracking, and anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops. 622--623.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  81. Eric Ras, Fridolin Wild, Christoph Stahl, and Alexandre Baudet. 2017. Bridging the skills gap of workers in Industry 4.0 by human performance augmentation tools: Challenges and roadmap. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments. 428--432.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  82. Orbis Research. 2020. Global Cyber Physical System Market 2020 by Company, Regions, Type and Application, Forecast to 2025 | Orbis Research. Retrieved from: https://www.orbisresearch.com/reports/index/global-cyber-physical-system-market-2020-by-company-regions-type-and-application-forecast-to-2025.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. Danilo Jimenez Rezende and Shakir Mohamed. 2015. Variational inference with normalizing flows. arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.05770 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  84. Michele Russo, Maxime Labonne, Alexis Olivereau, and Mohammad Rmayti. 2018. Anomaly detection in vehicle-to-infrastructure communications. In Proceedings of the IEEE 87th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Spring’18). IEEE, 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  85. Ahmed Salem, Apratim Bhattacharya, Michael Backes, Mario Fritz, and Yang Zhang. 2020. Updates-leak: Data set inference and reconstruction attacks in online learning. In Proceedings of the 29th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security’20). 1291--1308.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. Mahmoud Salem, Mark Crowley, and Sebastian Fischmeister. 2016. Anomaly detection using inter-arrival curves for real-time systems. In Proceedings of the 28th Euromicro Conference on Real-Time Systems (ECRTS’16). IEEE, 97--106.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  87. Jürgen Schmidhuber. 2015. Deep learning in neural networks: An overview. Neural Netw. 61 (2015), 85--117.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  88. Peter Schneider and Konstantin Böttinger. 2018. High-performance unsupervised anomaly detection for cyber-physical system networks. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Cyber-physical Systems Security and PrivaCy. ACM, 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  89. Xiaokui Shu, Danfeng Yao, and Naren Ramakrishnan. 2015. Unearthing stealthy program attacks buried in extremely long execution paths. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 401--413.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  90. Alban Siffer, Pierre-Alain Fouque, Alexandre Termier, and Christine Largouet. 2017. Anomaly detection in streams with extreme value theory. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, 1067--1075.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  91. Prabhu Teja Sivaprasad, Florian Mai, Thijs Vogels, Martin Jaggi, and Francois Fleuret. 2020. Optimizer benchmarking needs to account for hyperparameter tuning. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 9036--9045.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  92. Ya Su, Youjian Zhao, Chenhao Niu, Rong Liu, Wei Sun, and Dan Pei. 2019. Robust anomaly detection for multivariate time series through stochastic recurrent neural network. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. ACM, 2828--2837.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  93. Shahroz Tariq, Sangyup Lee, Youjin Shin, Myeong Shin Lee, Okchul Jung, Daewon Chung, and Simon S. Woo. 2019. Detecting anomalies in space using multivariate convolutional LSTM with mixtures of probabilistic PCA. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. ACM, 2123--2133.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  94. Norman L. Tasfi, Wilson A. Higashino, Katarina Grolinger, and Miriam A. M. Capretz. 2017. Deep neural networks with confidence sampling for electrical anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Internet of Things (iThings) and IEEE Green Computing and Communications (GreenCom) and IEEE Cyber, Physical and Social Computing (CPSCom) and IEEE Smart Data (SmartData). IEEE, 1038--1045.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  95. Adrian Taylor, Sylvain Leblanc, and Nathalie Japkowicz. 2016. Anomaly detection in automobile control network data with long short-term memory networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA’16). IEEE, 130--139.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  96. Keras Team. 2019. Keras documentation: About Keras. Retrieved from https://keras.io/about/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  97. Franco van Wyk, Yiyang Wang, Anahita Khojandi, and Neda Masoud. 2019. Real-time sensor anomaly detection and identification in automated vehicles. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transport. Syst. 21, 3 (2019), 1264--1276.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  98. Eric Veith, Lars Fischer, Martin Tröschel, and Astrid Nieße. 2019. Analyzing cyber-physical systems from the perspective of artificial intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.11779 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  99. Bolun Wang, Yuanshun Yao, Bimal Viswanath, Haitao Zheng, and Ben Y. Zhao. 2018. With great training comes great vulnerability: Practical attacks against transfer learning. In Proceedings of the 27th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIXSecurity’18). 1281--1297.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  100. Huaizhi Wang, Jiaqi Ruan, Zhengwei Ma, Bin Zhou, Xueqian Fu, and Guangzhong Cao. 2019. Deep learning aided interval state prediction for improving cyber security in energy internet. Energy 174 (2019), 1292--1304.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  101. Jingyu Wang, Dongyuan Shi, Yinhong Li, Jinfu Chen, Hongfa Ding, and Xianzhong Duan. 2018. Distributed framework for detecting PMU data manipulation attacks with deep autoencoders. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 10, 4 (2018), 4401--4410.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  102. Wenye Wang and Zhuo Lu. 2013. Cyber security in the smart grid: Survey and challenges. Comput. Netw. 57, 5 (2013), 1344--1371.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  103. Xiaofei Wang, Yiwen Han, Chenyang Wang, Qiyang Zhao, Xu Chen, and Min Chen. 2019. In-edge AI: Intelligentizing mobile edge computing, caching and communication by federated learning. IEEE Netw. 33, 5 (2019), 156--165.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  104. Yawei Wang, Donghui Chen, Cheng Zhang, Xi Chen, Baogui Huang, and Xiuzhen Cheng. 2019. Wide and recurrent neural networks for detection of false data injection in smart grids. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Wireless Algorithms, Systems, and Applications. Springer, 335--345.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  105. Wikipedia. 2020. December 2015 Ukraine power grid cyberattack. Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=December_2015_Ukraine_power_grid_cyberattack&oldid=920905638.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  106. Wikipedia. 2020. List of self-driving car fatalities. Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_self-driving_car_fatalities&oldid=928100815.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  107. Wikipedia. 2020. Stuxnet. Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stuxnet&oldid=939556423.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  108. Zhenyu Wu, Yang Guo, Wenfang Lin, Shuyang Yu, and Yang Ji. 2018. A weighted deep representation learning model for imbalanced fault diagnosis in cyber-physical systems. Sensors 18, 4 (2018), 1096.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  109. Yu-jun Xiao, Wen-yuan Xu, Zhen-hua Jia, Zhuo-ran Ma, and Dong-lian Qi. 2017. NIPAD: A non-invasive power-based anomaly detection scheme for programmable logic controllers. Front. Inf. Technol. Electron. Eng. 18, 4 (2017), 519--534.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  110. Le Xie, Yilin Mo, and Bruno Sinopoli. 2010. False data injection attacks in electricity markets. In Proceedings of the 1st IEEE International Conference on Smart Grid Communications. IEEE, 226--231.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  111. Guowen Xu, Hongwei Li, Hao Ren, Kan Yang, and Robert H. Deng. 2019. Data security issues in deep learning: Attacks, countermeasures, and opportunities. IEEE Commun. Mag. 57, 11 (2019), 116--122.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  112. Kui Xu, Ke Tian, Danfeng Yao, and Barbara G. Ryder. 2016. A sharper sense of self: Probabilistic reasoning of program behaviors for anomaly detection with context sensitivity. In Proceedings of the 46th IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN’16). IEEE, 467--478.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  113. Danfeng Yao, Xiaokui Shu, Long Cheng, and Salvatore J. Stolfo. 2017. Anomaly detection as a service: Challenges, advances, and opportunities. Synth. Lect. Inf. Secur., Priv., Trust 9, 3 (2017), 1--173.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  114. Houssam Zenati, Chuan Sheng Foo, Bruno Lecouat, Gaurav Manek, and Vijay Ramaseshan Chandrasekhar. 2018. Efficient GAN-based anomaly detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.06222 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  115. Chuxu Zhang, Dongjin Song, Yuncong Chen, Xinyang Feng, Cristian Lumezanu, Wei Cheng, Jingchao Ni, Bo Zong, Haifeng Chen, and Nitesh V. Chawla. 2019. A deep neural network for unsupervised anomaly detection and diagnosis in multivariate time series data. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 1409--1416.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  116. Hao Zhang, Danfeng Daphne Yao, Naren Ramakrishnan, and Zhibin Zhang. 2016. Causality reasoning about network events for detecting stealthy malware activities. Comput. Secur. 58 (2016), 180--198.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  117. Mu Zhang, Chien-Ying Chen, Bin-Chou Kao, Yassine Qamsane, Yuru Shao, Yikai Lin, Elaine Shi, Sibin Mohan, Kira Barton, James Moyne et al. 2019. Towards automated safety vetting of PLC code in real-world plants. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP’19). IEEE, 522--538.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  118. Xinyang Zhang, Ningfei Wang, Hua Shen, Shouling Ji, Xiapu Luo, and Ting Wang. 2020. Interpretable deep learning under fire. In Proceedings of the 29th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security’20).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  119. Y. Zhang, V. V. G. Krishnan, J. Pi, K. Kaur, A. Srivastava, A. Hahn, and S. Suresh. 2019. Cyber physical security analytics for transactive energy systems. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 11, 2 (2019), 931--941.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  120. Konglin Zhu, Zhicheng Chen, Yuyang Peng, and Lin Zhang. 2019. Mobile edge assisted literal multi-dimensional anomaly detection of in-vehicle network using LSTM. IEEE Trans.Vehic. Technol. 68, 5 (2019), 4275--4284.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  121. Zahra Zohrevand, Uwe Glässer, Mohammad A. Tayebi, Hamed Yaghoubi Shahir, Mehdi Shirmaleki, and Amir Yaghoubi Shahir. 2017. Deep learning based forecasting of critical infrastructure data. In Proceedings of the ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM, 1129--1138.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  122. Bo Zong, Qi Song, Martin Renqiang Min, Wei Cheng, Cristian Lumezanu, Daeki Cho, and Haifeng Chen. 2018. Deep autoencoding Gaussian mixture model for unsupervised anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR'18).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Deep Learning-based Anomaly Detection in Cyber-physical Systems: Progress and Opportunities

      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

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Computing Surveys
        ACM Computing Surveys  Volume 54, Issue 5
        June 2022
        719 pages
        ISSN:0360-0300
        EISSN:1557-7341
        DOI:10.1145/3467690
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2021 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 25 May 2021
        • Accepted: 1 February 2021
        • Revised: 1 December 2020
        • Received: 1 March 2020
        Published in csur Volume 54, Issue 5

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      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