IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/dyngam/v9y2019i4d10.1007_s13235-018-0280-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Securing Infrastructure Facilities: When Does Proactive Defense Help?

Author

Listed:
  • Manxi Wu

    (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

  • Saurabh Amin

    (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

Abstract

Infrastructure systems are increasingly facing new security threats due to the vulnerabilities of cyber-physical components that support their operation. In this article, we investigate how the infrastructure operator (defender) should prioritize the investment in securing a set of facilities in order to reduce the impact of a strategic adversary (attacker) who can target a facility to increase the overall usage cost of the system. We adopt a game-theoretic approach to model the defender-attacker interaction and study two models: normal form game—where both players move simultaneously—and sequential game—where attacker moves after observing the defender’s strategy. For each model, we provide a complete characterization of how the set of facilities that are secured by the defender in equilibrium vary with the costs of attack and defense. Importantly, our analysis provides a sharp condition relating the cost parameters for which the defender has the first-mover advantage. Specifically, we show that to fully deter the attacker from targeting any facility, the defender needs to proactively secure all “vulnerable facilities” at an appropriate level of effort. We illustrate the outcome of the attacker–defender interaction on a simple transportation network. We also suggest a dynamic learning setup to understand how this outcome can affect the ability of imperfectly informed users to make their decisions about using the system in the post-attack stage.

Suggested Citation

  • Manxi Wu & Saurabh Amin, 2019. "Securing Infrastructure Facilities: When Does Proactive Defense Help?," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 984-1025, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:dyngam:v:9:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s13235-018-0280-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s13235-018-0280-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13235-018-0280-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13235-018-0280-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bagwell, Kyle, 1995. "Commitment and observability in games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 271-280.
    2. Fudenberg, Drew & Levine, David K., 1995. "Consistency and cautious fictitious play," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 19(5-7), pages 1065-1089.
    3. Sanjeev Goyal & Adrien Vigier, 2014. "Attack, Defence, and Contagion in Networks," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 81(4), pages 1518-1542.
    4. Kalai, Ehud & Lehrer, Ehud, 1993. "Rational Learning Leads to Nash Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(5), pages 1019-1045, September.
    5. Vicki Bier & Santiago Oliveros & Larry Samuelson, 2007. "Choosing What to Protect: Strategic Defensive Allocation against an Unknown Attacker," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 9(4), pages 563-587, August.
    6. Maskin, Eric & Tirole, Jean, 2001. "Markov Perfect Equilibrium: I. Observable Actions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 100(2), pages 191-219, October.
    7. Alan Washburn & Kevin Wood, 1995. "Two-Person Zero-Sum Games for Network Interdiction," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 43(2), pages 243-251, April.
    8. Acemoglu, Daron & Malekian, Azarakhsh & Ozdaglar, Asu, 2016. "Network security and contagion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 536-585.
    9. Dziubiński, Marcin Konrad & Goyal, Sanjeev, 2017. "How do you defend a network?," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(1), January.
    10. Beggs, A.W., 2005. "On the convergence of reinforcement learning," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 1-36, May.
    11. Fudenberg, Drew & Kreps, David M., 1995. "Learning in extensive-form games I. Self-confirming equilibria," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 20-55.
    12. Kalai, Ehud & Lehrer, Ehud, 1993. "Subjective Equilibrium in Repeated Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(5), pages 1231-1240, September.
    13. Dziubiński, Marcin & Goyal, Sanjeev, 2013. "Network design and defence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 30-43.
    14. Gerald Brown & Matthew Carlyle & Javier Salmerón & Kevin Wood, 2006. "Defending Critical Infrastructure," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 530-544, December.
    15. Powell, Robert, 2007. "Defending against Terrorist Attacks with Limited Resources," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 101(3), pages 527-541, August.
    16. Cominetti, Roberto & Melo, Emerson & Sorin, Sylvain, 2010. "A payoff-based learning procedure and its application to traffic games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 71-83, September.
    17. Josef Hofbauer & William H. Sandholm, 2002. "On the Global Convergence of Stochastic Fictitious Play," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(6), pages 2265-2294, November.
    18. Sandholm, William H., 2001. "Potential Games with Continuous Player Sets," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 81-108, March.
    19. repec:oup:restud:v:81:y:2014:i:4:p:1518-1542. is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Bier, Vicki M. & Hausken, Kjell, 2013. "Defending and attacking a network of two arcs subject to traffic congestion," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 214-224.
    21. Laporte, Gilbert & Mesa, Juan A. & Perea, Federico, 2010. "A game theoretic framework for the robust railway transit network design problem," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 447-459, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dan Kovenock & Brian Roberson, 2018. "The Optimal Defense Of Networks Of Targets," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(4), pages 2195-2211, October.
    2. Daniel Woods & Mustafa Abdallah & Saurabh Bagchi & Shreyas Sundaram & Timothy Cason, 2022. "Network defense and behavioral biases: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 254-286, February.
    3. Bravard, Christophe & Charroin, Liza & Touati, Corinne, 2017. "Optimal design and defense of networks under link attacks," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 62-79.
    4. Manxi Wu & Saurabh Amin & Asuman Ozdaglar, 2021. "Multi-agent Bayesian Learning with Best Response Dynamics: Convergence and Stability," Papers 2109.00719, arXiv.org.
    5. Sobel, Joel, 2000. "Economists' Models of Learning," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 241-261, October.
    6. Dan Kovenock & Brian Roberson & Roman M. Sheremeta, 2019. "The attack and defense of weakest-link networks," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 179(3), pages 175-194, June.
    7. Alessandro Fedele & Cristian Roner, 2022. "Dangerous games: A literature review on cybersecurity investments," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(1), pages 157-187, February.
    8. Bloch, Francis & Chatterjee, Kalyan & Dutta, Bhaskar, 2023. "Attack and interception in networks," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 18(4), November.
    9. Marcin Dziubinski & Sanjeev Goyal, 2014. "How to Defend a Network?," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1450, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    10. Dziubiński, Marcin Konrad & Goyal, Sanjeev, 2017. "How do you defend a network?," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(1), January.
    11. Schipper, Burkhard C., 2021. "Discovery and equilibrium in games with unawareness," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    12. Bloch, Francis & Dutta, Bhaskar & Dziubiński, Marcin, 2020. "A game of hide and seek in networks," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    13. Yoo, Seung Han, 2014. "Learning a population distribution," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 188-201.
    14. Mario Gilli, 2002. "Rational Learning in Imperfect Monitoring Games," Working Papers 46, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Mar 2002.
    15. Britta Hoyer & Kris De Jaegher, 2023. "Network disruption and the common-enemy effect," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 52(1), pages 117-155, March.
    16. Funai, Naoki, 2022. "Reinforcement learning with foregone payoff information in normal form games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 638-660.
    17. Drew Fudenberg & David K Levine, 2005. "Learning and Belief Based Trading," Levine's Working Paper Archive 618897000000000975, David K. Levine.
    18. Belhaj, Mohamed & Deroïan, Frédéric, 2018. "Targeting the key player: An incentive-based approach," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 57-64.
    19. Naoki Funai, 2019. "Convergence results on stochastic adaptive learning," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(4), pages 907-934, November.
    20. Djawadi, Behnud Mir & Endres, Angelika & Hoyer, Britta & Recker, Sonja, 2019. "Network formation and disruption - An experiment are equilibrium networks too complex?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 708-734.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:dyngam:v:9:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s13235-018-0280-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.