Initial state opacity in stochastic DES

A non-deterministic finite automaton is initial-state opaque if the membership of its true initial state to a given set of secret states S remains opaque (i.e., uncertain) to an intruder who observes system activity through some natural projection map. By establishing that the verification of initial state opacity is equivalent to the language containment problem, earlier work has established that the verification of initial state opacity is a PSPACE-complete problem. In this paper, motivated by the desire to incorporate probabilistic (likelihood) information, we extend the notion of initial state opacity to stochastic discrete event systems. Specifically, we consider systems that can be modeled as probabilistic finite automata, and introduce and analyze the notions of almost initial state opacity and step-based almost initial state opacity, both of which hinge on the a priori probability that the given system generate behavior that violates initial-state opacity. We also discuss how almost initial state opacity and step-based almost initial state opacity can be verified, and analyze the complexity of the proposed verification methods.

[1]  Steve A. Schneider,et al.  CSP and Anonymity , 1996, ESORICS.

[2]  Anooshiravan Saboori,et al.  Verification and enforcement of state-based notions of opacity in discrete event systems , 2010 .

[3]  Christoforos N. Hadjicostis,et al.  Verification of $K$-Step Opacity and Analysis of Its Complexity , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering.

[4]  Roberto Gorrieri,et al.  A taxonomy of trace-based security properties for CCS , 1994, Proceedings The Computer Security Foundations Workshop VII.

[5]  Christoforos N. Hadjicostis,et al.  Notions of security and opacity in discrete event systems , 2007, 2007 46th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control.

[6]  David Lee,et al.  Testing Finite-State Machines: State Identification and Verification , 1994, IEEE Trans. Computers.

[7]  P. Darondeau,et al.  Opacity enforcing control synthesis , 2008, 2008 9th International Workshop on Discrete Event Systems.

[8]  Maciej Koutny,et al.  Modelling Opacity Using Petri Nets , 2005, WISP@ICATPN.

[9]  Christoforos N. Hadjicostis,et al.  Verification of K-step opacity and analysis of its complexity , 2011, Proceedings of the 48h IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) held jointly with 2009 28th Chinese Control Conference.

[10]  Christos G. Cassandras,et al.  Introduction to Discrete Event Systems , 1999, The Kluwer International Series on Discrete Event Dynamic Systems.

[11]  Benoît Caillaud,et al.  Concurrent Secrets , 2007, 2006 8th International Workshop on Discrete Event Systems.

[12]  Christoforos N. Hadjicostis,et al.  Verification of initial-state opacity in security applications of discrete event systems , 2013, Inf. Sci..

[13]  Christoforos N. Hadjicostis,et al.  Verification of Infinite-Step Opacity and Complexity Considerations , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.

[14]  Christoforos N. Hadjicostis,et al.  Opacity verification in stochastic discrete event systems , 2010, 49th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC).

[15]  Maciej Koutny,et al.  Opacity generalised to transition systems , 2005, International Journal of Information Security.

[16]  A. Saboori,et al.  Verification of initial-state opacity in security applications of DES , 2008, 2008 9th International Workshop on Discrete Event Systems.

[17]  Anooshiravan Saboori,et al.  Coverage analysis of mobile agent trajectory via state-based opacity formulations☆ , 2011 .