Defending against multiple different attackers

One defender defends, and multiple heterogeneous attackers attack, an asset. Three scenarios are considered: the agents move simultaneously; the defender moves first; or the attackers move first. We show how the agents' unit costs of defense and attack, their asset evaluations, and the number of attackers influence their investments, profits, and withdrawal decisions. Withdrawal does not occur in one-period (simultaneous) games between two agents, at least with the commonly used ratio-form contest success function, but can occur in two-period games between two agents. The presence of one particularly strong attacker can cause other attackers to withdraw from the contest if the advantaged attacker appropriates so much of the defender's asset that it is no longer sufficiently attractive to interest other attackers. In such cases, the defender focuses exclusively on the strong attacker. An advantaged defender may be able to deter attacks by moving first, but will continue to suffer from attacks if moving second. This suggests the importance of proactive rather than reactive defense.

[1]  Kjell Hausken,et al.  Mutual Raiding of Production and the Emergence of Exchange , 2004 .

[2]  Ross J. Anderson Why information security is hard - an economic perspective , 2001, Seventeenth Annual Computer Security Applications Conference.

[3]  K. Hausken Production and Conflict Models Versus Rent-Seeking Models , 2005 .

[4]  R. Tollison,et al.  Toward a theory of the rent-seeking society , 1982 .

[5]  G. Tullock Efficient Rent Seeking , 2001 .

[6]  R. Zeckhauser,et al.  The Ecology of Terror Defense , 2003 .

[7]  M. Naceur Azaiez,et al.  Optimal resource allocation for security in reliability systems , 2007, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[8]  J. Hirshleifer Conflict and rent-seeking success functions: Ratio vs. difference models of relative success , 1989 .

[9]  Richard A. Posner,et al.  The Social Costs of Monopoly and Regulation , 1974, Journal of Political Economy.

[10]  Karl Ove Moene,et al.  Fighting against the odds , 2005 .

[11]  S. Skaperdas Contest success functions , 1996 .

[12]  Larry Samuelson,et al.  Choosing What to Protect: Strategic Defensive Allocation Against an Unknown Attacker , 2005 .

[13]  S. Nitzan Modelling rent-seeking contests , 1994 .

[14]  Vicki M. Bier,et al.  Subsidies in Interdependent Security With Heterogeneous Discount Rates , 2007 .

[15]  Vicki M. Bier,et al.  Protection of simple series and parallel systems with components of different values , 2005, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[16]  Vernon L. Smith,et al.  THE PARADOX OF POWER , 1991 .

[17]  Paul G. Spirakis,et al.  A Network Game with Attackers and a Defender , 2008, Algorithmica.

[18]  A. Krueger The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society , 1974 .

[19]  James Aspnes,et al.  Inoculation strategies for victims of viruses and the sum-of-squares partition problem , 2005, SODA '05.

[20]  Vicki M. Bier,et al.  Balancing Terrorism and Natural Disasters - Defensive Strategy with Endogenous Attacker Effort , 2007, Oper. Res..

[21]  Oguzhan Alagöz,et al.  Modeling secrecy and deception in a multiple-period attacker-defender signaling game , 2010, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[22]  Yvonne Durham,et al.  Do the Rich Get Richer and the Poor Poorer? Experimental Tests of a Model of Power , 1998 .

[23]  Todd Sandler,et al.  Games and Terrorism , 2009 .

[24]  Vicki M. Bier,et al.  Game-Theoretic and Reliability Methods in Counterterrorism and Security , 2006 .

[25]  J. Atsu Amegashie,et al.  A contest success function with a tractable noise parameter , 2003 .

[26]  T. Sandler Collective versus unilateral responses to terrorism , 2005, Transnational Terrorism.