Secure control of cyber physical systems subject to stochastic distributed DoS and deception attacks

H∞ output quantized control for networked control systems under resilient event‐triggered mechanism and aperiodic denial‐of‐service attacks

“…0] and n = n x + n c , then the switched system (8) under aperiodic DoS attacks, resilient ETM, and quantization is exponentially stable with a decay rate ρ = 𝜌 2 .…”

“…Some random DoS attacks can be modeled as Bernoulli distribution. For instance, considering DoS attacks obeying Bernoulli distribution, event‐triggered sliding mode control is studied for uncertain CPSs [6], event‐triggered control (ETC) is investigated for linear stochastic NCSs [7], and observer‐based controller is designed for CPSs with random delays [8] and random packet dropouts [9]. For CPSs with inherent stochastic packet dropouts under periodic DoS jamming attacks, the work [10] studies guaranteed cost control based on a passive attack‐tolerant mechanism.…”

Resilient Event-based Control for Nonlinear Cyber-Physical Systems under Intermittent Deception Attacks

“…where f n on = f n+1 − f n − f n of f is defined as the duration of the nth attack. Remark 1 Note that previous works dealing with deception attacks, such as [24,33], are inclined to model the attack as a stochastic process. Such approaches rely heavily on the intentions of attackers, which are sometimes hard to determine in advance.…”

Control of teleoperation systems in the presence of cyber attacks: A survey

“…As explained above, the BTS could face instability or it is led to undesired operations by these attacks. Thence, it is essential to design controllers for BTSs while taking into accounts the security issues [122], [123].…”

“…Due to the aforementioned importance of controlling systems in the presence of cyber attacks, many literature consider this urgent and major problems. Many literature discussed the DoS attacks alone [125]- [130], deception attacks alone [131], [136], or two attacks [123], [124], [137]- [139]. of BTSs.…”