Moving-Target Defense for Detecting Coordinated Cyber-Physical Attacks in Power Grids

E. Veronica Belmega; H. Vincent Poor; Subhash Lakshminarayana

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 23 references

Moving-Target Defense for Detecting Coordinated Cyber-Physical Attacks in Power Grids

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that installing D-FACTS devices on the complement of a maximum-weight spanning tree—one line in every cycle—and perturbing those reactances makes every coordinated cyber-physical attack detectable.

desk verdict Novel graph-theoretic MTD placement rule for power grids, but detection is only guaranteed against exact zero-residual attacks, not near-threshold mismatched ones. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02392 v1 pith:DZPI5FOP submitted 2019-08-06 cs.CR cs.ITcs.SYeess.SYmath.IT

Subhash Lakshminarayana , E. Veronica Belmega , H. Vincent Poor This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CRcs.ITcs.SYeess.SYmath.IT

keywords movingtargetdefensecoordinatedcyber-physicalattackspowergridsecurityfalsedatainjectionD-FACTSreactanceperturbationbaddetectionfeedbackedgesetgame-theoretic

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Coordinated cyber-physical attacks (CCPAs) hide a physical transmission-line outage by injecting false sensor measurements. This paper claims that a defender can detect every such attack by installing D-FACTS devices on a set of lines that hits every cycle in the grid's topology, and then periodically perturbing those lines' reactances so the attacker's pre-learned reactance values become stale. The minimum such deployment set is the complement of a maximum-weight spanning tree. A second, game-theoretic step chooses which installed devices to activate at any given load condition, lowering the operating-cost increase while still protecting the lines most worth attacking. If correct, this gives grid operators a scalable, device-based way to turn undetectable line outages into detectable events.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the feedback edge set: a set of links whose removal leaves no cycles, equivalently the complement of a maximum-weight spanning tree. In the grid graph, every alternative path between the endpoints of an attacked line plus the line itself is a cycle; perturbing at least one line in every cycle breaks the attacker's ability to reconstruct the post-outage phase-angle difference from reactance and flow measurements. The mechanism is realized physically by distributed flexible AC transmission system (D-FACTS) devices, which vary line reactance within preset limits. The attack-masking formula $a = \Delta H \theta_p$, taken from prior work, is what connects reactance knowledge to the false-data vector, and the bad-data detector's residual test is what converts stale knowledge into an alarm.

What would settle it

A concrete test: take a small grid, install D-FACTS on the complement of a maximum-weight spanning tree, and let an attacker who is given the true current reactances—rather than stale ones—construct a CCPA against any line. If the bad-data detector fails to raise an alarm for such an informed attacker, the guarantee that every cycle contains a perturbed link implies detection would be false in that setting. Conversely, if the attacker is limited to pre-perturbation reactances, the residual should exceed the threshold whenever the perturbation magnitude exceeds a few percent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a graph-theoretic placement rule for moving-target defense against CCPAs. Each possible single-line attack pairs the disconnected line with any alternative path between its endpoints; together they form a cycle. If every cycle contains at least one line whose reactance is actively varied, then no alternative path is entirely known from the attacker's stale data, so the false-data vector $a = \Delta H \theta_p$ that masks the outage no longer matches the current measurement model and the bad-data detector's residual grows past the alarm threshold. Installing devices on the complement of a maximum-weight spanning tree gives the smallest set with this cycle-hitting property. The paper also formulates the operational choice of which installed devices to perturb as a finite two-player game, solves it by mixed-strategy equilibrium, and reports that the equilibrium perturbation set shrinks under light loading.

Load-bearing premise

The defense assumes the attacker's knowledge of line reactances is outdated: the attacker learns the pre-perturbation settings and cannot observe or track the new D-FACTS reactances in real time; if an adversary could read the current settings from local measurements or by compromising the control channel, conditions C1 and C2 would not invalidate the attacker's knowledge and the placement rule would not guarantee detection.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every single-line CCPA becomes detectable once D-FACTS devices are deployed on the complement of a maximum-weight spanning tree, regardless of which line is attacked.
Only a modest perturbation—around 5–6% change in line reactance in the tested cases—is enough to push the detection probability high, so the defense need not drastically alter power flow.
The size of the deployment set is set by topology: one 24-bus test system requires 15 devices while a 39-bus system requires only 8, so adding loops rather than buses drives the cost.
Under light loading, the game-theoretic equilibrium chooses a smaller perturbation subset and the defense cost drops from roughly 11.6% to 2.9% of the operating-cost increase.
If the operator perturbs only a subset of the deployment set, some lines are left unprotected; the game formulation tells which lines are rational to protect under a given load scenario.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The placement rule is purely structural; weighting lines by flow, contingency severity, or attack attractiveness could produce a different optimal deployment that also breaks high-risk cycles.
The detection guarantee depends on the attacker being stuck with stale reactances; an adversary who observes current D-FACTS settings in real time, or compromises the control channel, would evade this defense, so the perturbation schedule itself should be randomized and secured.
The game's action space treats each line separately; a coordinated attack that disconnects multiple lines simultaneously would require a larger action set and might invalidate the reported equilibria.
A direct empirical check on a small test feeder would be to freeze the attacker's knowledge at pre-perturbation values, attack one line, and verify that the bad-data residual exceeds the threshold once the reactance shift exceeds a few percent.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The thing to know: this paper gives a genuinely clean graph-theoretic rule for where to put D-FACTS devices so that a coordinated cyber-physical attack against any single line cannot be perfectly masked. The rule—install on the complement of a maximum spanning tree, i.e., a minimum feedback edge set—is new in the MTD-for-power-grids context and is the kind of insight that makes the paper worth reading.

What's actually new: first application of moving-target defense to coordinated cyber-physical attacks (prior MTD work targeted FDI only), the feedback-edge-set placement criterion, and a game-theoretic scheme to pick a subset of D-FACTS links to perturb at operating time. The graph reasoning in Section V-A is sound, and the authors are honest about the exponential complexity of finding the mixed NE. The IEEE-bus simulations support the qualitative claims.

Now the soft spots, in rough order.

First, the central theorem only rules out exact zero-residual attacks. The paper says 'the attacker cannot launch an undetectable CCPA,' which is true if 'undetectable' means zero BDD residual. But when the attacker uses outdated reactances, the injected vector is a mismatched FDI, and whether the BDD flags it depends on the residual relative to the noise threshold. For small perturbations, detection probability approaches the false-positive rate. The paper does not provide a lower bound over the D-FACTS range, and the simulation tests only links 1–3 at 5–6% perturbation. So the practical claim 'detect CCPAs' is weaker than the theorem implies.

Second, the game-theoretic payoffs assume that if a link is protected, the attack is detected (IS=0) with certainty. That is not established by the theorem, and it matters because the NE perturbation sets in Table II are chosen on that basis.

Third, the mixed NE reporting is thin: no probabilities, no support details, no check for multiple equilibria. The reader cannot reproduce the game results from Table II alone.

Fourth, the attacker model assumes the adversary cannot track the perturbed reactances in real time. That's a reasonable premise, but it's not validated, and the whole mechanism depends on it.

Who is this for? Researchers in power grid security and MTD. The placement rule is a solid, citable contribution. The paper deserves a serious referee, but it should be revised to either temper the detection claims or add a sensitivity analysis over the full perturbation range and all protected links. I'd engage with it.

Recommendation: send to peer review, with a clear request for clarification on the detection guarantee.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a moving-target defense (MTD) against coordinated cyber-physical attacks (CCPAs) in power grids, based on actively perturbing transmission-line reactances with D-FACTS devices. The first contribution is a graph-theoretic rule for placing D-FACTS devices: if the devices are installed on the complement of a maximum-weight spanning tree, then every cycle in the grid graph contains at least one perturbed link, and the authors claim that this prevents any attacker from launching an undetectable CCPA. The second contribution is a game-theoretic method for choosing, at run time, a subset of the deployed D-FACTS links to perturb, so as to reduce operational cost while protecting important links. The claims are evaluated on IEEE-14 (and deployment sizes are reported for IEEE-9, 24, 39) using MATPOWER simulations, with a detection-probability experiment for three links and a Nash-equilibrium cost comparison for two load scenarios.

Significance. If the main claim could be fully supported, the paper would make a useful contribution: the placement rule is elegant, appears to be the correct minimum feedback-edge-set characterization for invalidating the attacker's exact knowledge, and it gives a concrete, security-motivated deployment criterion that goes beyond the existing FDI-only MTD literature. The game-theoretic operational layer is a reasonable way to trade off protection against cost. However, the paper overstates what is proven: the graph-theoretic argument rules out exact zero-residual attacks, but the paper does not provide a quantitative guarantee that the resulting mismatched attacks are actually detected by the BDD. The simulations demonstrate high detection probability in a few cases but do not support the global, worst-case claim.

major comments (4)

[Section V-A] The statement that placing D-FACTS on L\L_sptr makes every CCPA detectable is stronger than what the derivation establishes. Conditions C1/C2 show only that an attacker holding pre-perturbation reactances can no longer construct the exact zero-residual attack a = ΔHθ_p from [6]. When the true reactances differ from the learned values, the injected vector is a mismatched FDI, and detection depends on the resulting residual. Under the Gaussian noise model of Section III, the BDD residual is a noncentral chi-square statistic whose noncentrality parameter scales with the squared mismatch between the outdated and actual reactances divided by the noise variance. For arbitrarily small perturbations this noncentrality tends to zero and the detection probability tends to the false-positive rate α. The paper should either prove a lower bound on detection probability over the allowed perturbation range [xmin, xmax] or explicitly weaken the claim from 'cannot launch an undetectable CCPA' to 'cannot launch an exactly zero-residual CCPA.'
[Section VI] The detection-probability experiment tests only Links 1, 2, and 3 of the IEEE-14 system, at roughly 5–6% reactance perturbation, and it reports curves rather than a worst-case lower bound. Since the deployment theorem in Section V-A is global—it claims protection for every link in the system—the simulation evidence should cover all links in LD, or at least identify the link with the smallest detection probability and show a lower bound over the full range [xmin, xmax]. Without such a worst-case analysis, the global claim is not supported by the experiments.
[Section V-B] The game-theoretic payoff model treats attack success as a deterministic binary event: if the attacked link is protected, then IS=0 and the attack is always unsuccessful. This is justified only if the detection probability is exactly 1. The detection experiment in Fig. 2 shows detection probability increasing with perturbation size and approaching 1, but it does not establish certainty, and the game-theoretic results in Table II rely on the binary success indicator. The payoffs and Nash equilibria should be reformulated in terms of expected cost with a detection probability that may be less than 1, or the paper should provide a rigorous guarantee that protected links are always detected.
[Section IV] The defense premise is that the attacker's acquired knowledge is stale at the moment of the attack: the attacker learned the old reactance settings and cannot track the new settings in real time. This assumption is stated informally and is load-bearing, because if the attacker can observe the current D-FACTS settings (e.g., from local measurements or by compromising the D-FACTS control channel), then conditions C1/C2 do not invalidate any knowledge and the proposed placement rule does not guarantee detection. The paper should state this as an explicit threat-model assumption and, ideally, provide a sensitivity analysis with respect to the time between perturbation and attack.

minor comments (5)

[Section III] The text says 'Equation (1a) is the nodal power balance constraint,' but the nodal power balance is constraint (1b); equation (1a) is the objective function.
[Section V-A] There is a typo in the IEEE-4 example: 'attcker' should be 'attacker,' and 'θ1,p−θj2p' should be 'θ1,p−θ2,p'.
[Section IV] In Problem 1, the notation 'k=1,...,K_l' is used, but later in Section V-A the text refers to 'k=1,...,k_M' when describing paths; this should be harmonized to avoid confusion between the path index and the number of links in a path.
[Section VI] The figure caption uses η as the percentage change in reactance, but η is not defined in the text; please define it explicitly in the simulation setup.
[Section V-B] The phrase 'operational cost' is used for the cost of perturbing links, but the formal definition is only given by reference [9]; a short explanation of why perturbing reactances increases OPF cost would improve readability, especially because the OPF in Eq. (1) already optimizes over x.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the placement theorem is a standard graph-theoretic consequence of the stated attack model, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The attack construction a = Delta-H-theta-p and the attacker knowledge requirement in Eq. (2) are taken from prior work [6] as external inputs, not as conclusions of this paper. Conditions C1 and C2 are direct negations of those knowledge requirements, and Problem 1 is a restatement of the resulting protective condition. The loop argument is an equivalence: every set {l} union p_k^l is a cycle, so installing D-FACTS on a feedback edge set (the complement of a maximum-weight spanning tree) invalidates at least one reactance value needed for every possible alternate path. The minimum feedback edge set result is a standard graph-theoretic theorem [21] applied to that condition, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction and no equation is reintroduced as its own conclusion. The potentially weak inference, from 'the attacker cannot construct the exact zero-residual attack' to 'the BDD detects the mismatched attack with high probability,' is a statistical correctness/validity concern, not circularity. Self-citations [9], [20], and related author citations [12], [19] concern operational cost, perturbation frequency, and learning techniques; none is load-bearing for the placement or detection claim. The simulations test detection behavior rather than fitting a parameter and then predicting it. Overall, the paper's derivation is self-contained apart from standard external attack and graph-theory results.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The graph-theoretic placement rule is a parameter-free derivation from standard graph theory plus the attacker knowledge model in [6]. The game-theoretic cost results depend on hand-chosen simulation inputs (loads, generator costs, line limits), which are scenario parameters, not fitted constants. No new physical entities are introduced; D-FACTS devices and the attack model are taken from prior literature.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption DC power flow model with linear measurement equation z = Hθ + n
Used throughout Section III for OPF, state estimation, and attack construction.
domain assumption Undetectable FDI attack form a = Hc from [10], and coordinated attack a = ΔHθ_p from [6]
The entire MTD design criterion rests on this attack construction being the only way to mask a physical disconnection.
domain assumption The attacker can learn line reactances from monitoring but cannot track the defender's periodic perturbations in real time
Motivates why reactance perturbation invalidates attacker knowledge; if attackers could observe current reactances, conditions C1/C2 in Section IV would fail.
standard math Minimum weight feedback edge set in an undirected graph equals the complement of a maximum weight spanning tree
Used in Section V-A to derive the minimal D-FACTS deployment set L_D = L \ L_sptr.
standard math Nash's existence theorem for mixed strategies and the Von Neumann indifference principle
Used in Section V-B to define and compute mixed-strategy Nash equilibria of the defender-attacker game.
domain assumption Physical attacks are limited to disconnecting a single transmission line
The paper explicitly states in Section I that only line-disconnection CCPAs are considered; multi-line or generator attacks are out of scope.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Moving-Target Defense for Detecting Coordinated Cyber-Physical Attacks in Power Grids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DZPI5FOP

@misc{pith2026190802392,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Moving-Target Defense for Detecting Coordinated Cyber-Physical Attacks in Power Grids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DZPI5FOP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02392}
}

read the original abstract

This work proposes a moving target defense (MTD) strategy to detect coordinated cyber-physical attacks (CCPAs) against power grids. A CCPA consists of a physical attack, such as disconnecting a transmission line, followed by a coordinated cyber attack that injects false data into the sensor measurements to mask the effects of the physical attack. Such attacks can lead to undetectable line outages and cause significant damage to the grid. The main idea of the proposed approach is to invalidate the knowledge that the attackers use to mask the effects of the physical attack by actively perturbing the grid's transmission line reactances using distributed flexible AC transmission system (D-FACTS) devices. We identify the MTD design criteria in this context to thwart CCPAs. The proposed MTD design consists of two parts. First, we identify the subset of links for D-FACTS device deployment that enables the defender to detect CCPAs against any link in the system. Then, in order to minimize the defense cost during the system's operational time, we use a game-theoretic approach to identify the best subset of links (within the D-FACTS deployment set) to perturb which will provide adequate protection. Extensive simulations performed using the MATPOWER simulator on IEEE bus systems verify the effectiveness of our approach in detecting CCPAs and reducing the operator's defense cost.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02392 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** An example of a 4 bus power grid. angle vector θ = [θ1, . . . , θN ] as f = DAT θ, where the matrix A ∈ R N×L is the branch-bus incidence matrix [18] and D ∈ R L×L is a diagonal matrix of the reciprocals of link reactances. We denote the set of links on which D-FACTS devices are deployed by LD where LD ⊆ L. D-FACTS devices enable the reactances of these lines to be varied within a pre-defined range [x min , x max], … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Attack detection probability as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

[6]

CCPA :Coordinated cyber-physical attacks and countermeasures in smart grid,

R. Deng, P. Zhuang, and H. Liang, “CCPA :Coordinated cyber-physical attacks and countermeasures in smart grid,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid , vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 2420–2430, Sept. 2017

work page 2017
[1]

Analysis of the cyber attack on the Ukrainian power grid,

“Analysis of the cyber attack on the Ukrainian power grid,” http://bit. ly/2ohNwJ1

work page
[2]

Hackers inﬁltrated power grids in U.S., Spain,

“Hackers inﬁltrated power grids in U.S., Spain,” https://bit.ly/2WxFxoj

work page
[3]

Joint cyber and physical attacks on power grids: Graph theoretical approaches for information recovery,

S. Soltan, M. Yannakakis, and G. Zussman, “Joint cyber and physical attacks on power grids: Graph theoretical approaches for information recovery,” in Proc. ACM International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems (SIGMETRICS) , 2015, pp. 361–374

work page 2015
[4]

Bilevel model for analyzing coordinated cyber-physical attacks on power sys- tems,

Z. Li, M. Shahidehpour, A. Alabdulwahab, and A. Abusorrah, “Bilevel model for analyzing coordinated cyber-physical attacks on power sys- tems,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 2260–2272, Sep. 2016

work page 2016
[5]

Analyzing locally coordinated cyber-physical attacks for unde- tectable line outages,

——, “Analyzing locally coordinated cyber-physical attacks for unde- tectable line outages,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 35–47, Jan. 2018

work page 2018
[7]

Evaluation of the vulnerability of phasor measurement units to GPS spooﬁng attacks,

D. P. Shepard, T. E. Humphreys, and A. A. Fansler, “Evaluation of the vulnerability of phasor measurement units to GPS spooﬁng attacks,” In- ternational Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection (IJCIP) , vol. 5, pp. 146–153, 2012

work page 2012
[8]

Distributed FACTS; A new concept for realizing grid power ﬂow control,

D. Divan and H. Johal, “Distributed FACTS; A new concept for realizing grid power ﬂow control,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst. , vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 2253–2260, Nov 2007

work page 2007

Show all 23 references

[9]

Cost-Beneﬁt analysis of moving- target defense in power grids,

S. Lakshminarayana and D. K. Y . Yau, “Cost-Beneﬁt analysis of moving- target defense in power grids,” in Proc. IEEE/IFIP Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN) , June 2018, pp. 139–150

2018
[10]

False data injection attacks against state estimation in electric power grids,

Y . Liu, P. Ning, and M. K. Reiter, “False data injection attacks against state estimation in electric power grids,” in Proc. ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) , 2009, pp. 21–32

2009
[11]

Integrity data attacks in power market operations,

L. Xie, Y . Mo, and B. Sinopoli, “Integrity data attacks in power market operations,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid , vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 659–666, Dec 2011

2011
[12]

Strategic protection against data injection attacks on power grids,

T. T. Kim and H. V . Poor, “Strategic protection against data injection attacks on power grids,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid , vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 326–333, June 2011

2011
[13]

Topology perturbation for detecting malicious data injection,

K. L. Morrow, E. Heine, K. M. Rogers, R. B. Bobba, and T. J. Overbye, “Topology perturbation for detecting malicious data injection,” in Proc. International Conference on System Sciences, Jan 2012, pp. 2104–2113

2012
[14]

Moving target defense for hardening the security of the power system state estimation,

M. A. Rahman, E. Al-Shaer, and R. B. Bobba, “Moving target defense for hardening the security of the power system state estimation,” in Proc. First ACM Workshop on Moving Target Defense , 2014, pp. 59–68

2014
[15]

Reactance perturbation for detecting and identifying fdi attacks in power system state estimation,

C. Liu, J. Wu, C. Long, and D. Kundur, “Reactance perturbation for detecting and identifying fdi attacks in power system state estimation,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing , vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 763–776, Aug 2018

2018
[16]

Bad data injection attack and defense in electricity market using game theory study,

M. Esmalifalak, G. Shi, Z. Han, and L. Song, “Bad data injection attack and defense in electricity market using game theory study,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 160–169, March 2013

2013
[17]

Data injection attacks on smart grids with multiple adversaries: A game-theoretic perspective,

A. Sanjab and W. Saad, “Data injection attacks on smart grids with multiple adversaries: A game-theoretic perspective,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 2038–2049, July 2016

2016
[18]

Wood and B

A. Wood and B. Wollenberg, Power Generation, Operation, and Control. A Wiley-Interscience, 1996

1996
[19]

Blind topology identiﬁcation for power systems,

X. Li, H. V . Poor, and A. Scaglione, “Blind topology identiﬁcation for power systems,” in Proc. IEEE International Conference on SmartGrid Communications (SmartGridComm), Oct 2013, pp. 91–96

2013
[20]

Trade-offs in data- driven false data injection attacks against the power grid,

S. Lakshminarayana, F. Wen, and D. K. Y . Yau, “Trade-offs in data- driven false data injection attacks against the power grid,” in Proc. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), Apr. 2018, pp. 2022–2026

2018
[21]

J. A. Bondy and U. S. R. Murty, Graph Theory with Applications . London : Macmillan, 1976

1976
[22]

Fudenberg and J

D. Fudenberg and J. Tirole, Game theory. MIT Press, 1991

1991
[23]

Some applications of distributed ﬂexible AC transmission system (D-FACTS) devices in power systems,

K. M. Rogers and T. J. Overbye, “Some applications of distributed ﬂexible AC transmission system (D-FACTS) devices in power systems,” in Proc. North American Power Symposium (NAPS), Sept 2008, pp. 1–8

2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [6]

CCPA :Coordinated cyber-physical attacks and countermeasures in smart grid,

R. Deng, P. Zhuang, and H. Liang, “CCPA :Coordinated cyber-physical attacks and countermeasures in smart grid,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid , vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 2420–2430, Sept. 2017

work page 2017

[2] [1]

Analysis of the cyber attack on the Ukrainian power grid,

“Analysis of the cyber attack on the Ukrainian power grid,” http://bit. ly/2ohNwJ1

work page

[3] [2]

Hackers inﬁltrated power grids in U.S., Spain,

“Hackers inﬁltrated power grids in U.S., Spain,” https://bit.ly/2WxFxoj

work page

[4] [3]

Joint cyber and physical attacks on power grids: Graph theoretical approaches for information recovery,

S. Soltan, M. Yannakakis, and G. Zussman, “Joint cyber and physical attacks on power grids: Graph theoretical approaches for information recovery,” in Proc. ACM International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems (SIGMETRICS) , 2015, pp. 361–374

work page 2015

[5] [4]

Bilevel model for analyzing coordinated cyber-physical attacks on power sys- tems,

Z. Li, M. Shahidehpour, A. Alabdulwahab, and A. Abusorrah, “Bilevel model for analyzing coordinated cyber-physical attacks on power sys- tems,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 2260–2272, Sep. 2016

work page 2016

[6] [5]

Analyzing locally coordinated cyber-physical attacks for unde- tectable line outages,

——, “Analyzing locally coordinated cyber-physical attacks for unde- tectable line outages,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 35–47, Jan. 2018

work page 2018

[7] [7]

Evaluation of the vulnerability of phasor measurement units to GPS spooﬁng attacks,

D. P. Shepard, T. E. Humphreys, and A. A. Fansler, “Evaluation of the vulnerability of phasor measurement units to GPS spooﬁng attacks,” In- ternational Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection (IJCIP) , vol. 5, pp. 146–153, 2012

work page 2012

[8] [8]

Distributed FACTS; A new concept for realizing grid power ﬂow control,

D. Divan and H. Johal, “Distributed FACTS; A new concept for realizing grid power ﬂow control,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst. , vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 2253–2260, Nov 2007

work page 2007