Researcher profile

Cody H. Fleming

Cody H. Fleming contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
4topics
3close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Yoneda Hacking: The Algebra of Attacker Actions

Our work focuses on modeling the security of systems from their component-level designs. Towards this goal, we develop a categorical formalism to model attacker actions. Equipping the categorical formalism with algebras produces two interesting results for security modeling. First, using the Yoneda lemma, we can model attacker reconnaissance missions. In this context, the Yoneda lemma shows us that if two system representations, one being complete and the other being the attacker's incomplete view, agree at every possible test, they behave the same. The implication is that attackers can still successfully exploit the system even with incomplete information. Second, we model the potential changes to the system via an exploit. An exploit either manipulates the interactions between system components, such as providing the wrong values to a sensor, or changes the components themselves, such as controlling a global positioning system (GPS). One additional benefit of using category theory is that mathematical operations can be represented as formal diagrams, helpful in applying this analysis in a model-based design setting. We illustrate this modeling framework using an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) cyber-physical system model. We demonstrate and model two types of attacks (1) a rewiring attack, which violates data integrity, and (2) a rewriting attack, which violates availability.

preprint2021arXiv

Compositional Cyber-Physical Systems Modeling

Assuring the correct behavior of cyber-physical systems requires significant modeling effort, particularly during early stages of the engineering and design process when a system is not yet available for testing or verification of proper behavior. A primary motivation for `getting things right' in these early design stages is that altering the design is significantly less costly and more effective than when hardware and software have already been developed. Engineering cyber-physical systems requires the construction of several different types of models, each representing a different view, which include stakeholder requirements, system behavior, and the system architecture. Furthermore, each of these models can be represented at different levels of abstraction. Formal reasoning has improved the precision and expanded the available types of analysis in assuring correctness of requirements, behaviors, and architectures. However, each is usually modeled in distinct formalisms and corresponding tools. Currently, this disparity means that a system designer must manually check that the different models are in agreement. Manually editing and checking models is error prone, time consuming, and sensitive to any changes in the design of the models themselves. Wiring diagrams and related theory provide a means for formally organizing these different but related modeling views, resulting in a compositional modeling language for cyber-physical systems. Such a categorical language can make concrete the relationship between different model views, thereby managing complexity, allowing hierarchical decomposition of system models, and formally proving consistency between models.