Paper detail

Differentiation Between Faults and Cyberattacks through Combined Analysis of Cyberspace Logs and Physical Measurements

In recent years, cyberattacks - along with physical faults - have become an increasing factor causing system failures, especially in DER (Distributed Energy Resources) systems. In addition, according to the literature, a number of faults have been reported to remain undetected. Consequently, unlike anomaly detection works that only identify abnormalities, differentiating undetected faults and cyberattacks is a challenging task. Although several works have studied this problem, they crucially fall short of achieving an accurate distinction due to the reliance on physical laws or physical measurements. To resolve this issue, the industry typically conducts an integrated analysis with physical measurements and cyberspace information. Nevertheless, this industry approach consumes a significant amount of time due to the manual efforts required in the analysis. In this work, we focus on addressing these crucial gaps by proposing a non-trivial approach of distinguishing undetected faults and cyberattacks in DER systems. Specifically, first, a special kind of dependency graph is constructed using a novel virtual physical variable-oriented taint analysis (PVOTA) algorithm. Then, the graph is simplified using an innovative node pruning technique, which is based on a set of context-dependent operations. Next, a set of patterns capturing domain-specific knowledge is derived to bridge the semantic gaps between the cyber and physical sides. Finally, these patterns are matched to the relevant events that occurred during failure incidents, and possible root causes are concluded based on the pattern matching results. In the end, the efficacy of our proposed automatic integrated analysis is evaluated through four case studies covering failure incidents caused by the FDI attack, undetected faults, and memory corruption attacks.

preprint2026arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.