“…Under the first consideration, the APDU bytes were constructed and transmitted successfully several times (or 300 times) between the MTU and RTU and vice versa; here, we ensured and verified that the APDU bytes were accurately constructed and transmitted between the participant nodes. This consideration was investigated without the use of any security development, meaning that the APDU bytes were transmitted and all of the possible attacks such as Eavesdropping, Key Cracking, Man-in-the-Middle, Guessing Key (or Guessing Shared Key), Brute Force, Password Guessing, Frame Injection, Data Replay, and Data Deletion [ 5 , 56 , 57 ] were launched using built-in tools such as sniffer/dsniff, cracking tools, ethereal, ettercap, aircrack, airsnort, dinject/reinject, injection/jamming tools, and/or attack-detection mechanisms [ 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 ]; this resulted in an abnormal transmission (or attack transmission) for the SCADA/DNP3 system and the system performances were also measured in the absence of security development. Some attack tools are designated, however, and can be used for wireless transmissions, and we also employed and tested the testbed under the wireless-connectivity condition [ 72 , 73 , 74 ].…”