Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 164 references

Towards Principled Analysis and Mitigation of Space Cyber Risks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A framework computes the likelihood that cyber attacks disrupt space missions and selects the NIST controls that drive that likelihood below a tolerable threshold.

desk verdict A useful framework contribution and a genuinely citable dataset, with an honest limitations section; the quantitative layer is not yet calibrated, but the flaws are fixable. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.16991 v1 pith:EJUBFBJX submitted 2025-08-23 cs.CR

Ekzhin Ear This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords spacecyberriskmissionanalysiscascadingeffectssecuritycontrolselectionSATCOMtestbedattacklikelihoodmodelinghardeningcharacterization
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

This dissertation argues that cyber risk to space missions can be made tractable by modeling the infrastructure as a directed graph of modules, specifying each mission as control and data flows over that graph, and representing attacker capabilities as attack techniques with likelihoods. It provides algorithms that propagate attack likelihoods through direct and cascading effects, compute a mission disruption likelihood via a "weakest link" max aggregation, and then prune attack techniques until that likelihood falls below a set threshold, mapping the pruned techniques to specific NIST SP 800-53 security controls. The framework is validated by re-enacting three historical space cyber attacks—a 2007 RF hijack of a TV channel, a 1998 denial of service on the Galaxy 4 satellite, and a 2008 seizure of control—in a SATCOM testbed, reporting that four security controls suffice to mitigate all three attacks. The wider claim is that mission-level risk computation can replace the subjective, technique-by-technique aggregation of existing tools such as Notional Risk Scores. The dissertation itself flags in Section 7.2.4 that the input likelihoods are expert-assigned and the independence assumption is a stated limitation.

What carries the argument

The central object is a directed multigraph $G_{infra} = (V_{infra}, E_{infra})$ whose nodes are space-infrastructure modules and whose arcs are communication relationships, together with mission control flows and mission data flows defined as subgraphs of that infrastructure. The argument is carried by two algorithms: Algorithm 4, which computes each node's and arc's compromise likelihood from technique likelihoods and the independence-based aggregation rules of Eqs. (VI.2)–(VI.6), optionally propagating compromise along arcs as cascading effects; and Algorithm 6, which hardens missions by removing attack techniques until the max-aggregated mission disruption likelihood drops below threshold $T$, then maps the removed techniques to NIST SP 800-53 security controls. The "weakest link" max rule (Definition VI.5, Algorithm 5) is what converts node and arc likelihoods into mission disruption likelihoods, and it is the core identity the whole risk computation rests on.

What would settle it

Re-run the three testbed attacks but measure empirically how often each of the ten attack techniques actually compromises its target module or arc, then feed those measured probabilities into Algorithm 4 with the same mission graph and threshold $T = 0.1$; if the predicted mission disruption likelihoods or the chosen set of security controls differ from the paper's expert-driven results, that falsifies the claim that the framework's output is an effective guide without input calibration. A second falsifier targets the aggregation rule: construct a mission with two redundant flows that share a single power bus, let the max rule predict low disruption risk, then cut the bus; if the mission is disrupted despite the max rule's prediction, the "weakest link" aggregation is invalid for that structure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that space cyber risk can be defined and computed at the level of missions: a mission is disrupted when any of its control or data flows is disrupted, and a flow is disrupted when any of its nodes or arcs is compromised, all aggregated with the max function to capture the "weakest link" intuition. Node and arc compromise likelihoods are built from products of technique-possession likelihoods $L_{at}$ and per-node/arc compromise probabilities $\beta(v, at)$ or $\beta(e, at)$, combined under an independence assumption, with an optional loop that propagates compromise along graph arcs to model cascading effects. Algorithm 4 computes mission disruption likelihoods, and Algorithm 6 iteratively removes attack techniques whose direct or cascading effect pushes a mission above the tolerable threshold $T$, finally mapping the removed techniques to NIST security controls. The testbed experiments report that with cascading effects eight of ten techniques must be mitigated, leaving residual likelihood $L(j) = 0.04$ below $T = 0.1$, while without cascading five techniques suffice and leave $L(j) = 0.08$; four controls (SC-13, SI-16, CM-7(2), AC-6(10)) were sufficient to thwart the three re-enacted attacks. The author states that the framework "can effectively harden space missions" and that NIST security controls "can effectively mitigate space cyber risks."

Load-bearing premise

The whole pipeline's outputs inherit whatever accuracy the expert-chosen likelihoods have: the values for technique possession $L_{at}$ and the per-node/arc compromise probabilities $\beta(v, at)$ and $\beta(e, at)$, together with the independence assumption in aggregation and the "weakest link" max rule for mission disruption, are the load-bearing premises; if those are wrong, the computed mission disruption likelihoods and the recommended security controls do not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Space cyber risk becomes expressible per mission rather than per technique, giving defenders an explicit, computable target for hardening.
  • Attack cascading effects materially change the answer: in the case study, ignoring cascades leads to five required mitigations while accounting for them requires eight, so ignoring cascade under-hardens the system.
  • A small number of security controls can cover many attack techniques: four NIST controls sufficed for three historical attacks spanning ten techniques.
  • The framework's modular structure lets analysts substitute their own aggregation functions (subject to probability laws), which enables future validation and refinement of the independence and max assumptions.
  • If applied at design time, the framework could, according to the case studies, have identified the attack paths of the Terra, Galaxy 4, and 2007 TV-hijack incidents before launch.
  • The gap between the cascading and non-cascading cases (8 vs 5 mitigations) highlights a concrete cost of cascading effects that mission designers can weigh against hardening budget.
  • A natural next experiment is to feed measured rather than expert-assigned values of $L_{at}$ and $beta$ into Algorithm 4 and compare the predicted control sets, which would test the framework's sensitivity to its weakest assumptions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Going beyond the paper: the eight-versus-five mitigation gap between the cascading and non-cascading cases could serve as a benchmark metric for any future space cyber risk tool, since it quantifies the hidden cost of ignoring cascade.
  • Going beyond the paper: the independence assumption behind Eqs. (VI.2)–(VI.6) is likely violated in coordinated multi-stage attacks where techniques share infrastructure or attacker effort; a testable extension is to model such dependence with copulas or a reliability-style joint distribution.
  • Going beyond the paper: because the mission disruption likelihood is a max over flows, the framework predicts that a defender should focus on the single most-likely-disrupted flow; for missions with redundant flows, a non-max aggregation (e.g., system reliability) would change which control is optimal, so an experiment comparing both aggregation rules on a redundant mission design would be informa
  • Going beyond the paper: the testbed results suggest that cryptographic protection of the link segment (control SC-13) alone closes several attack paths, echoing the dissertation's own Chapter III insight that link-segment cryptography could have thwarted nearly half of the 108 studied attacks; this cross-chapter consistency points toward a minimal hardening rule worth testing on a larger set of mi
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript, presented as a dissertation, makes four contributions to space cyber risk analysis and mitigation. First, it proposes a framework for characterizing real-world space cyber attacks, including a missing-data extrapolation methodology, three metrics (consequence, sophistication, likelihood), and a case study of 108 attacks leading to the extrapolated USCKC dataset of 6,206 attack chains. Second, it provides an algorithmic description of the Aerospace Corporation's Notional Risk Scores (NRS) and characterizes NRS strengths and weaknesses through two real-world case studies. Third, it proposes a set of desired properties for space cyber risk analysis and mitigation tools and applies these properties to assess NRS and CTAP. Fourth, it introduces a formal framework for mission risk analysis and hardening, with Algorithms 4-6, explicit modeling of three types of cascading effects, and a demonstration on a 19-module SATCOM testbed in which three historical attacks are re-enacted and mitigated by four NIST security controls. The central claim is that Algorithms 4 and 6 can compute mission disruption likelihoods and select NIST security controls that reduce those likelihoods below a tolerable threshold.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the framework is a substantial advance over the technique-level, subjective NRS approach: it is mission-centric, explicitly models cascading effects, provides formal definitions and algorithms, and is demonstrated on a physical testbed rather than only on paper. The authors deserve credit for a concrete testbed implementation, for re-enacting three real-world attacks, for openly listing limitations in Section 7.2.4, and for planning to open-source the code. The main weakness is that the quantitative outputs, and therefore the hardening recommendations, depend on expert-assigned likelihood inputs and on independence/max aggregation assumptions that are not empirically calibrated; the testbed demonstration does not close this gap. Because the limitations are acknowledged and are addressable with additional sensitivity analysis or calibration experiments, the correct path is major revision rather than rejection.

major comments (3)
  1. [§6.5.3.1, §6.5.5] The quantitative risk outputs and hardening recommendations are driven by author-assigned values: L(at) for the ten testbed techniques, beta(v,at) and beta(e,at) for nodes and arcs, and the threshold T=0.1. No sensitivity analysis or error bars are provided, but Algorithm 6's decisions are threshold-based: for example, beta(SM.C&DH, EX-0009.03)=0.17 combined with L(EX-0009.03)=0.23 gives 0.0391, which is below T and causes this technique to be dropped in Case 1. If the true beta were modestly larger, the technique would enter the >T regime and the reported L(j)=0.08 would change. The authors should add a sensitivity analysis over all input likelihoods and beta values, or calibrate these inputs with repeated testbed measurements, before claiming that the framework 'can effectively harden space missions.'
  2. [§6.4.2.3, §7.2.4] The aggregation functions in Eqs. (VI.2)-(VI.6) and the max-based 'weakest link' aggregation in Definition VI.5 and Algorithm 5 are load-bearing for every numerical result. Section 7.2.4 acknowledges that the independence and max forms are simplifying assumptions, and that experiments to invalidate them are planned but not performed. The testbed re-enactment in Section 6.5.5 cannot validate these functional forms because it uses the same assumptions to compute the L(j) values it then reports as evidence. The paper should either restrict the effectiveness claim to the model assumptions, or provide experiments that estimate the aggregation functions f, g, h, h' and the mission-level max rule from observed attack outcomes.
  3. [§6.5.5] The claim that security controls reduce mission disruption likelihood below T is not directly measured: the post-hardening values L(j)=0.04 (Case 0) and 0.08 (Case 1) are computed by Algorithm 4 from the same model inputs, while the testbed experiments show only that the four selected controls block the three attacks as staged. This is a circular evaluation: the model selects the controls, and the same model then reports the reduced likelihood. The authors should report an empirical measure of mission disruption, such as repeated attack attempts with and without each control, and compare the observed success rate to the model's L(j).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical and rendering errors, including 'hightest' (page 65), 'thr h' (page 154), 'Tl098' instead of T1098 (page 62), and corrupted symbols such as '½nfra' in Definition VI.1; the manuscript needs a careful copyedit.
  2. [Figures 3.6-3.10 and 6.3-6.11] Several figures, especially the scatter plots in Chapter III and the graph layouts in Chapter VI, are low-resolution and difficult to read in the preprint; the authors should provide higher-resolution vector graphics.
  3. [Algorithm 4, line 13] Line 13 of Algorithm 4 says 'for v E Einfra' but should read 'for v E Vinfra' based on context; please correct the notation.
  4. [§6.5.5] The text says 'we only need four security controls to adequately mitigate the eight at's,' and Figure 6.11 lists SC-13, SI-16, CM-7(2), and AC-6(10); the captions should clarify which controls apply to which attack techniques in Cases 0 and 1.
  5. [§6.5.5] The paper states that code will be open-sourced but does not provide an availability statement or repository link; this should be added for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Partial circularity: Chapter III's likelihood-vs-sophistication insight restates author-assigned inputs, and Chapter VI's below-threshold hardening result is the stopping condition of Algorithm 6; the testbed validates controls, not likelihoods.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.4.2.3, Attack Likelihood Analysis and Insight 6]
    "we assign each of the 107 attacks techniques a likelihood score from O to 1, while considering 0.2 the average likelihood because there are many obstacles attackers must overcome, such as fulfilling the attack technique's data and access requirements. ... the most readily executable technique is T1078 (the 'low hanging fruit'), which has the highest L( te) = .22 among the 3, while also being among the least sophisticated from the 107 te's that are used by the 108 attacks. ... Insight 6. Less sophisticated unified space cyber kill chains are more widely used by real-world attackers."

    The likelihood scores L(te) are not measured from observed attack frequencies; they are assigned by the authors using an ease-of-execution heuristic ('obstacles attackers must overcome', 'most readily executable... low hanging fruit'). The insight then reports as a finding that less sophisticated chains are more widely used, but the correlation is partly built into the assignment rule: techniques the authors deem easy are given high L(te), and those same scores are read back as evidence about real-world usage. The external APT28 citation supports the intuition, but the headline insight restates the scoring prior rather than being derived from independent data.

  2. self definitional [Algorithm 6 and Section 6.5.5]
    "while J =I- 0 do ... ATA +--ATA -{at: (3(u,at) > O}; delete u and its adjacent arcs from Ginfra; call Algorithm 4 with flag= 0 and updated Ginfra and AT A to re-compute L(j) to accommodate cascading effects; J +-- {j : ( 1 :S j :S n) and (L(j) > T)} ... in Case 0, Algorithm 6 identifies eight ( out of the 10) at' s to mitigate, reducing the mission disruption likelihood to L(j) = 0.04 < T = 0.l"

    Algorithm 6 is written to keep removing attack techniques and re-running Algorithm 4 until no mission has L(j) > T. Therefore any successful run yields L(j) < T by construction, and the reported 0.04/0.08 residual values are outputs of Algorithm 4 driven by the author-assigned beta and L(at) inputs, not measurements taken from the testbed. The testbed experiments genuinely show that the selected NIST controls block the re-enacted attacks, but they do not measure the mission-disruption likelihood; the claim that the framework 'can effectively harden space missions' thus conflates the algorithm's termination condition with empirical validation.

1 more flagged steps
  1. other [Section 6.5.3.1 and Section 7.2.4]
    "To determine f3(v, at) and f3(e, at), we leverage our domain knowledge in the same fashion as the SPARTA NRS [139]. ... To (in)validate this choice of aggregation function, we plan to design experiments to identify the correct form of aggregation functions (if applicable). ... it is an outstanding open problem to conduct experimental attack-defense research in real testbeds to collect data, conduct analysis, and identify these functions."

    The quantitative outputs of the framework—L(v), L(e), and L(j)—are computed from author-assigned beta values and from independence/max aggregation forms. The Section 6.5 case study re-enacts three attacks in a testbed using those same values, and then reports residual L(j)=0.04/0.08 as evidence of effectiveness. Since the testbed does not measure these likelihoods or identify the aggregation functions—which the limitations section says still need to be determined by future experiments—the claimed 'testbed-based validation' of the quantitative risk reduction is an internal consistency check on the model's own inputs rather than an external calibration of the risk numbers.

full rationale

The dissertation is largely self-contained: Chapters IV–V analyze external tools and standards, and Chapter VI contributes a graph-based mission model, Algorithms 4–6, and a real SATCOM testbed with NIST controls, so the engineering content is not borrowed from a self-citation chain. However, two load-bearing reductions are partial circularity. First, Insight 6 in Chapter III is generated from likelihood scores that the authors assign using an ease/obstacle heuristic, and the same assignment is then reported as evidence that less sophisticated chains are more widely used; the external APT28 citation is supportive, but the headline correlation is encoded in the scoring rule. Second, Algorithm 6's below-threshold result is the algorithm's own while-loop stopping condition, and the reported 0.04/0.08 residual likelihoods are outputs of Algorithm 4 using author-assigned beta and L(at) values; the testbed re-enactments show the selected NIST controls block the staged attacks, but they do not measure the residual likelihoods or calibrate the independence/max aggregations. The paper itself defers those calibration experiments to future work (Section 7.2.4). This is partial, not total, circularity: the graph formalization, the implementation, and the attack-blocking experiments are real and independent of the circular steps. Score 5 reflects the central validation relying on the model's own inputs while acknowledging the substantial independent testbed work.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central results depend heavily on author-assigned numerical inputs and on modeling choices that are not independently validated. The metrics and mission risk outputs are therefore calibrated to the authors' expertise rather than to external benchmarks. This is not necessarily wrong, but it means the quantitative claims should be read as illustrative until the inputs are validated with real data.

free parameters (6)
  • Attack consequence scores per segment (108 attacks) = 0 to 1 scores, e.g., RoSat 1998 scored 1.0
    Assigned by authors' domain expertise for space, link, ground, and user segments (Section 3.4.2.1).
  • Sophistication scores for 14 tactics and 107 techniques = e.g., Initial Access 0.5, Defense Evasion 0.9, Phishing 0.3
    Manually scored by authors from 0 to 1 (Section 3.4.2.2).
  • Likelihood scores for 107 techniques = e.g., Valid Accounts 0.22, Exploitation of Remote Services 0.09
    Assigned via domain knowledge, with 0.2 as average likelihood (Section 3.4.2.3).
  • Lat for the 10 testbed attack techniques = 0.23, 0.38, 0.38, 0.15, 0.25, 0.24, 0.23, 0.27, 0.23, 0.23
    Set for the case study in Section 6.5.3.1.
  • beta(v, at) and beta(e, at) for testbed nodes and arcs = e.g., beta(GM.NET, T1595) = 0.40, beta(SM.PAYCOM, IA-0007.02) = 0.45
    Leveraging domain knowledge in the same fashion as SPARTA NRS (Section 6.5.3.1).
  • Tolerable disruption threshold T = 0.1
    Chosen for the case study with no calibration (Section 6.5.5).
assumptions (5)
  • standard math A space infrastructure can be represented as a directed multigraph of modules (Definition VI.1).
    Standard graph modeling used throughout Chapter VI.
  • domain assumption ATT&CK and SPARTA attack techniques are an adequate language for modeling real-world space cyber attacks.
    The framework and metrics are built entirely on these taxonomies (Sections 6.4.1 and 3.4).
  • ad hoc to paper Likelihood values may be treated as probabilities and combined with product and max operators.
    Eqs. VI.2-VI.6 and Definition VI.5 assume independence and weakest-link aggregation, acknowledged as simplifying in Section 7.2.4.
  • ad hoc to paper Only three types of cascading effects (node-to-node, arc-to-node, node-to-arc) are needed.
    The paper states that other kinds of cascading effects are left to future studies (Section 6.4.2.1).
  • domain assumption The extrapolated USCKCs are plausible representations of the true attack chains.
    The empirical analysis in Chapter III rests on the 6,206 extrapolated chains (Section 3.4.1).
invented entities (1)
  • USCKC (Unified Space Cyber Kill Chain) dataset of 6,206 extrapolated attack chains
    purpose: Cope with missing data in real-world space cyber attack reports and enable metric computation.
    The chains are generated by the authors' extrapolation algorithm with domain expertise; no ground-truth validation or public dataset link is provided (Section 3.4.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Principled Analysis and Mitigation of Space Cyber Risks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EJUBFBJX

@misc{pith2026250816991,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Principled Analysis and Mitigation of Space Cyber Risks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EJUBFBJX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.16991}
}
read the original abstract

Space infrastructures have become an underpinning of modern society, but their associated cyber risks are little understood. This Dissertation advances the state-of-the-art via four contributions. (i) It introduces an innovative framework for characterizing real-world cyber attacks against space infrastructures, or space cyber attacks, including a novel methodology for coping with missing data and three novel metrics. A case study demonstrates the usefulness of the framework on 108 real-world space cyber attacks. (ii) This Dissertation characterizes the state-of-the-practice in space cyber risk analysis and mitigation, namely the Notional Risk Scores (NRS) within the Space Attack Research and Tactic Analysis (SPARTA) framework. (iii) We propose a set of desired properties that should be satisfied by any competent space cyber risk analysis and mitigation tool and applies them to assess two industrial space cyber risk analysis and mitigation tools. (iv) The study introduces a novel framework to analyze and mitigate space cyber risks by explicitly modeling space cyber attack cascading effects and presenting algorithms for mission risk analysis and mission hardening. We demonstrate the usefulness of the framework by applying it to analyze and mitigate space cyber risks, with testbed-based validation.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

164 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    Cybersecurity protections for spacecraft: A threat based approach

    B Bailey. Cybersecurity protections for spacecraft: A threat based approach. The Aerospace Corporation, 2021

    2021

  2. [3]

    Establishing space cybersecurity policy, standards, and risk management practices

    Brandon Bailey. Establishing space cybersecurity policy, standards, and risk management practices. Aerospace Corporation El Segundo, CA, 2020. [ 4] Brandon Bailey. Defcon 2023: Aerospace Village building space attack chains using SPARTA. https: / /sparta.aerospace.org/resources/OTR- 2 02 3-0 0 98 9_SPARTA_DefCon2 02 3.pdf, 2023

    2020

  3. [5]

    A look into SPARTA countermea- sures

    Brandon Bailey and Tim Dafoe. A look into SPARTA countermea- sures. https: / /medium.com/the-aerospace-corporation/a- look-into-sparta-countermeasures-358e2fcd43ed, 2023

    2023

  4. [6]

    Foundational pnt profile: Applying the cybersecurity framework for the respon­ sible use of positioning, navigation, and timing (pnt) services

    Michael Bartock, Joseph Brule, Y Li-Baboud, Suzanne Lightman, James Mc­ Carthy, Karen Reczek, Doug N orthrip, Arthur Scholz, and Theresa Suloway. Foundational pnt profile: Applying the cybersecurity framework for the respon­ sible use of positioning, navigation, and timing (pnt) services. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 2021

    2021

  5. [7]

    Security threats against space missions

    Green Book. Security threats against space missions. CCSDS Secretariat: Wash­ ington, DC, USA, 2006

    2006

  6. [8]

    Space cybersecurity lessons learned from the viasat cyberattack

    Nicolo Boschetti, Nathaniel G Gordon, and Gregory Falco. Space cybersecurity lessons learned from the viasat cyberattack. In ASCEND 2022, page 4380. 2022. 176

    2022

  7. [9]

    Ground station as a service reference ar­ chitectures and cyber security attack tree analysis

    Nicolo Boschetti, Chelsea Smethurst, Gregory Epiphaniou, Carsten Maple, Jo­ han Sigholm, and Gregory Falco. Ground station as a service reference ar­ chitectures and cyber security attack tree analysis. In 2023 IEEE Aerospace Conference, pages 1-12. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  8. [10]

    A hosted payload cyber attack against satellites

    Matteo Calabrese, Georgios Kavallieratos, and Gregory Falco. A hosted payload cyber attack against satellites. In A/AA SC/TECH 2024 Forum, page 0270, 2024

    2024

Show all 164 references
  1. [11]

    H. Chen, J. Cho, and S. Xu. Quantifying the security effectiveness of firewalls and dmzs. In Proc. HoTSoS'2018, pages 9:1-9:11, 2018

    2018

  2. [12]

    Quantifying cybersecurity effec­ tiveness of dynamic network diversity

    Huashan Chen, Hasan Cam, and Shouhuai Xu. Quantifying cybersecurity effec­ tiveness of dynamic network diversity. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 2021

    2021

  3. [13]

    Exhpd: Exploiting human, physical, and driving behaviors to detect vehicle cyber attacks

    Qian Chen, Paul Romanowich, Jorge Castillo, Krishna Chandra Roy, Gustavo Chavez, and Shouhuai Xu. Exhpd: Exploiting human, physical, and driving behaviors to detect vehicle cyber attacks. IEEE Internet Things J., 8(18):14355- 14371, 2021

    2021

  4. [14]

    Recent technology trends in satellite communication subsystems

    Vinod S Chippalkatti, Rajashekhar C Biradar, and SS Rana. Recent technology trends in satellite communication subsystems. In CONECCT. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  5. [15]

    Hurley, Matthew Mackay, Trevor Ben­ jamin, and Mark Beaumont

    Jin-Hee Cho, Shouhuai Xu, Patrick M. Hurley, Matthew Mackay, Trevor Ben­ jamin, and Mark Beaumont. Stram: Measuring the trustworthiness of computer- based systems. ACM Comput. Surv., 51(6):128:1-128:47, 2019

    2019

  6. [16]

    Towards effective cybersecurity for modular, open architecture satellite systems

    Daniel E Cunningham, Geancarlo Palavincini Jr, and Jose Romero-Mariona. Towards effective cybersecurity for modular, open architecture satellite systems. 2016. 177

    2016

  7. [17]

    Attack surface analysis for spacecraft flight software

    James Curbo and Gregory Falco. Attack surface analysis for spacecraft flight software. Technical report, EasyChair, 2024. [ 18] Cyber Peace Institute. Case study: Viasat. https:// cyberconflicts.cyberpeaceinstitute.org/law-and­ policy/cases/viasat

    2024

  8. [19]

    G. Da, M. Xu, and S. Xu. A new approach to modeling and analyzing security of networked systems. In Proc. HotSoS'14, pages 6:1-6:12, 2014

    2014

  9. [20]

    P. Du, Z. Sun, H. Chen, J. H. Cho, and S. Xu. Statistical estimation of malware detection metrics in the absence of ground truth. IEEE T-IFS, 13(12):2965-2980, 2018

    2018

  10. [21]

    Durumeric, J

    Z. Durumeric, J. Kasten, D. Adrian, J. Halderman, M. Bailey, F. Li, N. Weaver, J. Amann, J. Beekman, M. Payer, and V. Paxson. The Matter of Heartbleed. In Proc. IMC'2014

    2014

  11. [22]

    E. Ear, B. Bailey, and S. Xu. Towards principled risk scores for space cyber risk management. In Manuscript under review, 2024,

    2024

  12. [23]

    Towards principled risk scores for space cyber risk management

    Ekzhin Ear, Brandon Bailey, and Shouhuai Xu. Towards principled risk scores for space cyber risk management. CoRR, abs/2402.02635, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [24]

    Towards principled space cyber risk management: Characterizing notional risk scores

    Ekzhin Ear, Brandon Bailey, and Shouhuai Xu. Towards principled space cyber risk management: Characterizing notional risk scores. under review by IEEE CSR'2025, 2024

    2025

  14. [25]

    Towards principled space cyber risk management: Defining desired properties

    Ekzhin Ear, Brandon Bailey, and Shouhuai Xu. Towards principled space cyber risk management: Defining desired properties. under review by IEEE CSR'2025, 2024. 178

    2025

  15. [26]

    Characterizing russias cyber operations in ukraine through the lenses of cyber attack ttps

    Elczhin Ear, Caleb Chang, Jackson Butler, Juan Mejia, Shouhuai Xu, Haley Echelmeier, and Nicole Wells. Characterizing russias cyber operations in ukraine through the lenses of cyber attack ttps. USCYBERCOM CyberRecon '2024, 2024

    2024

  16. [27]

    Characterizing cyber attacks against space systems with missing data: Framework and case study

    Ekzhin Ear, Jose LC Remy, Antonia Peffer, and Shouhuai Xu. Characterizing cyber attacks against space systems with missing data: Framework and case study. In 2023 IEEE Conference on Communications and Network Security (CNS), pages 1-9. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  17. [28]

    Towards automated cyber range design: Characterizing and matching demands to supplies

    Ekzhin Ear, Jose LC Remy, and Shouhuai Xu. Towards automated cyber range design: Characterizing and matching demands to supplies. In 2023 IEEE CSR

    2023

  18. [29]

    2011 Report to Congress of the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission: One Hundred Twelfth Congress, First Session

    US-China Economic and Security Review Commission. 2011 Report to Congress of the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission: One Hundred Twelfth Congress, First Session. VS Government Printing Office, 2011

    2011

  19. [30]

    Network security breaches plague NASA

    Keith Epstein and Ben Elgin. Network security breaches plague NASA. Busi­ ness Week, 2008. Last accessed: May 20, 2023

    2008

  20. [31]

    When satellites attack: Satellite-to-satellite cyber attack, defense and resilience

    Gregory Falco. When satellites attack: Satellite-to-satellite cyber attack, defense and resilience. In ASCEND 2020, page 4014. 2020

    2020

  21. [32]

    A security risk taxonomy for commercial space missions

    Gregory Falco and Nicolo Boschetti. A security risk taxonomy for commercial space missions. In ASCEND 2021, page 4241. 2021

    2021

  22. [33]

    How to scrub a launch: spaceport cybersecurity

    Gregory Falco, Luke Korth, Patrick Custer, Rembert N Schofield, and Caleb Pocock. How to scrub a launch: spaceport cybersecurity. In 2023 IEEE 9th International Conference on Space Mission Challenges for Information Technol­ ogy (SMC-IT), pages 56--67. IEEE, 2023. 179

    2023

  23. [34]

    Wannafly: An approach to satellite ransomware

    Gregory Falco, Rajiv Thummala, and Arpit Kubadia. Wannafly: An approach to satellite ransomware. In 2023 IEEE 9th International Conference on Space Mission Challenges for Information Technology (SMC-IT), pages 84--93. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  24. [35]

    Cubesat security attack tree analysis

    Gregory Falco, Arnn Viswanathan, and Andrew Santangelo. Cubesat security attack tree analysis. In SMC-IT, pages 68-76. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  25. [36]

    X. Fang, M. Xu, S. Xu, and P. Zhao. A deep learning framework for predicting cyber attacks rates. EURASIP J. Information Security, 2019:5, 2019

    2019

  26. [37]

    Z. Fang, M. Xu, S. Xu, and T. Hu. A framework for predicting data breach risk: Leveraging dependence to cope with sparsity. IEEE T-IFS, 16:2186--2201, 2021

    2021

  27. [38]

    NASA-S3001: Guidance for Risk Management

    Alex Fansler. NASA-S3001: Guidance for Risk Management. NASA, Hampton, VA, 2022

    2022

  28. [39]

    Common vulnerability scoring system version 3.1: Specification document

    E FIRST. Common vulnerability scoring system version 3.1: Specification document. 2019

    2019

  29. [40]

    Control baselines for information systems and organizations

    Joint Task Force. Control baselines for information systems and organizations. NIST Special Publication, 800:53B, 2020. [ 41] Joint Task Force. Security and privacy controls for information systems and organizations. Technical report, National Institute of Standards and Techno...

    2020

  30. [42]

    Assessing security and privacy controls in information systems and organizations

    Joint Task Force. Assessing security and privacy controls in information systems and organizations. NIST Special Publication, 800:53A, 2022

    2022

  31. [43]

    Satellite hacking: A guide for the perplexed

    Jason Fritz. Satellite hacking: A guide for the perplexed. Culture Mandala, 10(1):5906, 2013. 180

    2013

  32. [44]

    Dataset security for machine learning: Data poisoning, backdoor attacks, and defenses

    Micah Goldblum, Dimitris Tsipras, Chulin Xie, Xinyun Chen, Avi Schwarzschild, Dawn Song, Aleksander Madry, Bo Li, and Tom Goldstein. Dataset security for machine learning: Data poisoning, backdoor attacks, and defenses. CoRR, abs/2012.10544, 2020

    2012 arXiv

  33. [45]

    Goodfellow, Jonathon Shlens, and Christian Szegedy

    Ian J. Goodfellow, Jonathon Shlens, and Christian Szegedy. Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. In Yoshua Bengio and Yann LeCun, editors, 3rd International Conference on Leaming Representations (ICLR'2015), 2015

    2015

  34. [46]

    Satellite Turla: still alive and hiding in the sky

    Oleg Gorobets. Satellite Turla: still alive and hiding in the sky. https: / / www.kaspersky.com/blog/ satelli te-turla/ 150 98 /, 2015

    2015

  35. [47]

    A survey on space­ air-ground-sea integrated network security in 6g

    Hongzhi Guo, Jingyi Li, Jiajia Liu, Na Tian, and Nei Kato. A survey on space­ air-ground-sea integrated network security in 6g. IEEE Communications Su-rveys & Tutorials, 24(1):53-87, 2021

    2021

  36. [48]

    Y. Han, W. Lu, and S. Xu. Characterizing the power of moving target defense via cyber epidemic dynamics. In HotSoS, pages 1-12, 2014. [ 49] Y. Han, W. Lu, and S. Xu. Preventive and reactive cyber defense dynamics with ergodic time-dependent parameters is globally attractive. I...

    2014

  37. [50]

    Guarding the galaxy: Satellite ransomware and countermeasures

    Petersen Hansen, Wayne C Henry, Mark G Reith, Rajiv Thummala, and Gregory Falco. Guarding the galaxy: Satellite ransomware and countermeasures. In 2024 IEEE Aerospace Conference, pages 1-6. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  38. [51]

    Space threat assessment 2021

    Todd Harrison, Kaitlyn Johnson, Joe Moye, and Makena Young. Space threat assessment 2021. Center for Strategic & International Studies., 2021. 181

    2021

  39. [52]

    Aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty in machine learning: An introduction to concepts and methods

    Eyke Hiillermeier and Willem Waegeman. Aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty in machine learning: An introduction to concepts and methods. Machine learning, 110(3):457-506, 2021

    2021

  40. [53]

    Space attacks open database project

    Space Security Info. Space attacks open database project. http s : //www.spacesecurity.info/en/space-attacks-open­ database/, Last accessed: Dec 15, 2022

    2022

  41. [54]

    Digital forensic evidence­ the missing link in threat modeling

    Asif Iqbal, Johannes Olegard, and Ranjana Ghimire. Digital forensic evidence­ the missing link in threat modeling. In 2020 International Conference on Data Analytics for Business and Industry: Way Towards a Sustainable Economy (ICD­ ABI), pages 1-5. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  42. [55]

    NIST SP 800-37r2: risk management framework for informa­ tion systems and organizations: A system life cycle approach for security and privacy, 2018

    Joint Task Force. NIST SP 800-37r2: risk management framework for informa­ tion systems and organizations: A system life cycle approach for security and privacy, 2018

    2018

  43. [56]

    NIST SP 800-30rl: guide for con­ ducting risk assessments, 2012

    Joint Task Force Transformation Initiative. NIST SP 800-30rl: guide for con­ ducting risk assessments, 2012

    2012

  44. [57]

    NIST SP 800-53r4: security and privacy controls for federal information systems and organizations, 2015

    Joint Task Force Transformation Initiative. NIST SP 800-53r4: security and privacy controls for federal information systems and organizations, 2015

    2015

  45. [58]

    A risk based approach to space system protection

    Michael P Jones and Kevin W Gilbert. A risk based approach to space system protection. In ASCEND 2022, page 4300. 2022

    2022

  46. [59]

    Kartaltepe, Jose Andre Morales, Shouhuai Xu, and Ravi S

    Erhan J. Kartaltepe, Jose Andre Morales, Shouhuai Xu, and Ravi S. Sandhu. Social network-based botnet command-and-control: Emerging threats and coun­ termeasures. InACNS, pages 511-528, 2010. 182 [ 60] Claudia Knez, Thomas Llans6, Dallas Pearson, Tibor Schonfeld, and Kristin S...

    2010

  47. [61]

    Owen D. Kurtin. Satellite hacking and china's role. https: //www.satellitetoday.com/government-military/2011/ 12/01/satellite-hacking-and-chinas-role/,2011

    2011

  48. [62]

    The vulnerabilities less exploited: Cyberattacks on end-of-life satellites

    Frank Lee and Gregory Falco. The vulnerabilities less exploited: Cyberattacks on end-of-life satellites. In SpaceSec, 2023

    2023

  49. [63]

    D. Li, Q. Li, Y. Ye, and S. Xu. Enhancing robustness of deep neural networks against adversarial malware samples: Principles, framework, and aics'2019 challenge. InAAAI-2019 Workshop on Artificial Intelligence for Cyber Security (AICS'2019)

    2019

  50. [64]

    D. Li, T. Qiu, S. Chen, Q. Li, and S. Xu. Can we leverage predictive uncertainty to detect dataset shift and adversarial examples in android malware detection? In The 2021 Annual Computer Security Application Conference (ACSAC), 2021. [ 65] Deqiang Li, Shicheng Cui, Yun Li, Ji...

    2021

  51. [66]

    A framework for enhancing deep neural networks against adversarial malware

    Deqiang Li, Qianmu Li, Yanfang Ye, and Shouhuai Xu. A framework for enhancing deep neural networks against adversarial malware. IEEE Trans. Netw. Sci. Eng., 8(1):736-750, 2021. 183

    2021

  52. [67]

    Arms race in adversarial malware detection: A survey

    Deqiang Li, Qianmu Li, Yanfang (Fanny) Ye, and Shouhuai Xu. Arms race in adversarial malware detection: A survey. ACM Comput. Surv., 55(1), 2023

    2023

  53. [68]

    X. Li, P. Parker, and S. Xu. A stochastic model for quantitative security analyses of networked systems. IEEE TDSC, 8(1):28--43, 2011

    2011

  54. [69]

    Z. Li, Q. Chen, C. Chen, Y. Zou, and S. Xu. Ropgen: Towards robust code authorship attribution via automatic coding style transformation. In Accepted to International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'2022)

    2022

  55. [70]

    Z. Li, R. Zhang, D. Zou, N. Wang, Y. Li, S. Xu, C. Chen, and H. Jin. Robin: A novel method to produce robust interpreters for deep learning-based code classifiers. In The 38th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE2023), 2023

    2023

  56. [71]

    Z. Li, D. Zou, S. Xu, H. Jin, H. Qi, and J. Hu. Vulpecker: an automated vulner­ ability detection system based on code similarity analysis. In Pro. ACSAC'l6, pages 201-213, 2016

    2016

  57. [72]

    Z. Li, D. Zou, S. Xu, H. Jin, Y. Zhu, and Z. Chen. Sysevr: A framework for using deep learning to detect software vulnerabilities. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 2021

    2021

  58. [73]

    Z. Li, D. Zou, S. Xu, X. Ou, H. Jin, S. Wang, Z. Deng, and Y. Zhong. Vuldeep­ ecker: A deep learning-based system for vulnerability detection. In Proc. NDSS'l8, 2018. 184

    2018

  59. [74]

    On the effectiveness of function-level vulnerability detectors for inter-procedural vulnerabilities

    Zhen Li, Ning Wang, Deqing Zou, Yating Li, Ruqian Zhang, Shouhuai Xu, Chao Zhang, and Hai Jin. On the effectiveness of function-level vulnerability detectors for inter-procedural vulnerabilities. accepted to International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'2024), abs/240...

    2024 arXiv

  60. [75]

    Vuldeelocator: A deep learning-based fine-grained vulnerability detector

    Zhen Li, Deqing Zou, Shouhuai Xu, Zhaoxuan Chen, Yawei Zhu, and Hai Jin. Vuldeelocator: A deep learning-based fine-grained vulnerability detector. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 2021

    2021

  61. [76]

    Hackers interfered with 2 US government satel- lites

    Matt Liebowitz. Hackers interfered with 2 US government satel- lites. https: / /www.space.com/13423-hackers-government- satellites.html, 2011

    2011

  62. [77]

    Satellite ground seg­ ment: Applying the cybersecurity framework to assure satellite command and control

    Suzanne Lightman, Theresa Suloway, and Joseph Brule. Satellite ground seg­ ment: Applying the cybersecurity framework to assure satellite command and control. Technical report, NIST, 2022

    2022

  63. [78]

    Defending small satellites from malicious cybersecurity threats

    Banks Lin, Wayne Henry, and Richard Dill. Defending small satellites from malicious cybersecurity threats. In International Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security, volume 17, pages 479--488, 2022

    2022

  64. [79]

    Z. Lin, W. Lu, and S. Xu. Unified preventive and reactive cyber defense dynam­ ics is still globally convergent. IEEE/ACM ToN, 27(3): 1098-1111, 2019

    2019

  65. [80]

    Sok: Why have defenses against social engineering attacks achieved limited success? CoRR, 2022

    Theodore Longtchi, Rosana Montanez Rodriguez, Laith Al-Shawaf, Adham Atyabi, and Shouhuai Xu. Sok: Why have defenses against social engineering attacks achieved limited success? CoRR, 2022. 185

    2022

  66. [81]

    Internet-based social engineering psychology, attacks, and defenses: A survey

    Theodore Longtchi, Rosana Montanez Rodriguez, Laith Al-Shawaf, Adham Atyabi, and Shouhuai Xu. Internet-based social engineering psychology, attacks, and defenses: A survey. Proceedings of IEEE, 112(3):210--246, 2024

    2024

  67. [82]

    Characterizing the evolution of psycho­ logical factors exploited by malicious emails

    Theodore Longtchi and Shouhuai Xu. Characterizing the evolution of psycho­ logical factors exploited by malicious emails. In Proceedings of International Conference on Science of Cyber Security (SciSec'2024), 2024

    2024

  68. [83]

    Characterizing the evolution of psycho­ logical tactics and techniques exploited by malicious emails

    Theodore Longtchi and Shouhuai Xu. Characterizing the evolution of psycho­ logical tactics and techniques exploited by malicious emails. In Proceedings of International Conference on Science of Cyber Security (SciSec'2024), 2024

    2024

  69. [84]

    Characterizing Internet-Based Social Engineering Attacks Through a Psychological Lens

    Theodore Tangie Longtchi. Characterizing Internet-Based Social Engineering Attacks Through a Psychological Lens. PhD thesis, University of Colorado Colorado Springs, 2024

    2024

  70. [85]

    Quan­ tifying psychological sophistication of malicious emails

    Theodore Tangie Longtchi, Rosana Montanez Rodriguez, Kora Gwartney, Ekzhin Ear, David P Azari, Christopher P Kelley, and Shouhuai Xu. Quan­ tifying psychological sophistication of malicious emails. IEEE Access, 2024

    2024

  71. [86]

    W. Lu, S. Xu, and X. Yi. Optimizing active cyber defense dynamics. In Proc. GameSec' 13, pages 206--225, 2013

    2013

  72. [87]

    Optimizing active cyber defense

    Wenlian Lu, Shouhuai Xu, and Xinlei Yi. Optimizing active cyber defense. In International Conference on Decision and Game Theory for Security, pages 206-225. Springer, 2013

    2013

  73. [88]

    Applications of pnt systems

    Scott Madry and Scott Madry. Applications of pnt systems. Global Navigation Satellite Systems and Their Applications, pages 71-82, 2015

    2015

  74. [89]

    The cyber kill chain, 1999

    Lockheed Martin. The cyber kill chain, 1999. 186

    1999

  75. [90]

    Cybersecurity framework profile for hybrid satellite networks (hsn)

    James McCarthy, Dan Mamula, Joseph Brule, Karri Meldorf, Rory Jennings, John Wiltberger, Chris Thorpe, John Dombrowski, O'Ryan Lattin, Sam Sepa­ ssi, et al. Cybersecurity framework profile for hybrid satellite networks (hsn). National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIS...

    2023

  76. [91]

    Jonathan's space report: Rosat hacking claim

    Jonathan McDowell. Jonathan's space report: Rosat hacking claim. https: / /planet4589.org/space/jsr/back/news.649.txt, 2011. Last ac­ cessed: May 20, 2023

    2011

  77. [92]

    Mireles, E

    J. Mireles, E. Ficke, J. Cho, P. Hurley, and S. Xu. Metrics towards measur­ ing cyber agility. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 14(12):3217-3232, 2019

    2019

  78. [93]

    Quantifying psycholog­ ical sophistication of malicious emails

    Rosana Montanez Rodriguez, Theodore Longtchi, Kora Gwartney, Ekzhin Ear, David P Azari, Christopher P Kelley, and Shouhuai Xu. Quantifying psycholog­ ical sophistication of malicious emails. In International Conference on Science of Cyber Security, pages 319-331. Springer, 2023

    2023

  79. [94]

    Cy­ bersecurity and Cognitive Science

    Rosana Montanez, Adham Atyabi, and Shouhuai Xu. Book Chapter in "Cy­ bersecurity and Cognitive Science", chapter Social Engineering Attacks and Defenses in the Physical World vs. Cyberspace: A Contrast Study. Elsevier, 2022

    2022

  80. [95]

    Human cognition through the lens of social engineering cyberattacks

    Rosana Montanez, Edward Golob, and Shouhuai Xu. Human cognition through the lens of social engineering cyberattacks. Frontiers in Psychology, 11:1755, 2020. 187

    2020

  81. [96]

    Morales, M

    J. Morales, M. Main, W. Luo, S. Xu, and R. Sandhu. Building malware infection trees. In Proc. MALWARE, pages 50--57, 2011

    2011

  82. [97]

    Jose Andre Morales, Areej Al-Bataineh, Shouhuai Xu, and Ravi S. Sandhu. Analyzing and exploiting network behaviors of malware. In SecureComm, pages 20--34, 2010

    2010

  83. [98]

    Sandhu, and Shouhuai Xu

    Jose Andre Morales, Ravi S. Sandhu, and Shouhuai Xu. Evaluating detection and treatment effectiveness of commercial anti-malware programs. In 5th Inter­ national Conference on Malicious and Unwanted Software (MALWARE'2010), pages 31-38, 2010

    2010

  84. [99]

    NASA-STD-I 006A: Space System Protection Standard

    NASA. NASA-STD-I 006A: Space System Protection Standard. NASA, Hamp- ton, VA, 2022

    2022

  85. [100]

    Space Security: Best Practices Guide

    NASA. Space Security: Best Practices Guide. Hampton, VA, 2023

    2023

  86. [101]

    Terra: The EOS flagship

    NASA. Terra: The EOS flagship. ht tps: / /terra.nasa.gov /, 2023

    2023

  87. [102]

    Framework for Improving Crit­ ical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, Version 1.1

    National Institute of Standards and Technology. Framework for Improving Crit­ ical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, Version 1.1. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, April 2018

    2018

  88. [103]

    The NIST Cybersecurity Frame­ work, Version 2.0

    National Institute of Standards and Technology. The NIST Cybersecurity Frame­ work, Version 2.0. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, February 2024. [ 104] Kartik Na yak, Daniel Marino, Petros Efstathopoulos, and Tudor Dumitra~. Some vulnerabilitie...

    2024

  89. [105]

    M. Newman. The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Review, 45:167, 2003

    2003

  90. [106]

    Future satellite system architectures and practical design issues: An overview

    Tien M Nguyen. Future satellite system architectures and practical design issues: An overview. Satellite Systems-Design, Modeling, Simulation and Analysis, 2020

    2020

  91. [107]

    The common vulnerability scoring system (CVSS), June 2015

    The Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams FIRST. The common vulnerability scoring system (CVSS), June 2015

    2015

  92. [108]

    Cyber-worthiness and cyber­ resilience to secure low earth orbit satellites

    David Ormrod, Jill Slay, and Amy Ormrod. Cyber-worthiness and cyber­ resilience to secure low earth orbit satellites. ICCWS, 2021

    2021

  93. [109]

    On the use of cyber threat intelligence (cti) in support of developing the commander's understanding of the adversary

    Manisha Parmar and Alberto Domingo. On the use of cyber threat intelligence (cti) in support of developing the commander's understanding of the adversary. InMILCOM2019-2019IEEEMilitary Communications Conference (MILCOM), pages 1-6. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  94. [110]

    Building a launchpad for satellite cyber­ security research: lessons from 60 years of spaceflight

    James Pavur and Ivan Martinovic. Building a launchpad for satellite cyber­ security research: lessons from 60 years of spaceflight. Journal of Cybersecurity, 8(1):tyac008, 2022

    2022

  95. [111]

    A tale of sea and sky on the security of maritime vsat communications

    James Pavur, Daniel Moser, Martin Strohmeier, Vincent Lenders, and Ivan Mar­ tinovic. A tale of sea and sky on the security of maritime vsat communications. In S&P, pages 1384--1400. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  96. [112]

    In the same boat: On small satellites, big rockets, and cyber trust

    James Pavur, Martin Strohmeier, Vincent Lenders, and Ivan Martinovic. In the same boat: On small satellites, big rockets, and cyber trust. In CyCon, pages 151-169. IEEE, 2021. 189

    2021

  97. [113]

    A survey on systems security metrics

    Marcus Pendleton, Richard Garcia-Lebron, Jin-Hee Cho, and Shouhuai Xu. A survey on systems security metrics. ACM Comput. Surv., 49(4):1-35, December 2016

    2016

  98. [114]

    A survey on systems security metrics

    Marcus Pendleton, Richard Garcia-Lebron, Jin-Hee Cho, and Shouhuai Xu. A survey on systems security metrics. ACM Comput. Surv., 49(4):62:1-62:35, December 2016

    2016

  99. [115]

    Modeling and predict­ ing extreme cyber attack rates via marked point processes

    Chen Peng, Maochao Xu, Shouhuai Xu, and Taizhong Hu. Modeling and predict­ ing extreme cyber attack rates via marked point processes. Journal of Applied Statistics, 44(14):2534--2563, 2017

    2017

  100. [116]

    Modeling multivari­ ate cybersecurity risks

    Chen Peng, Maochao Xu, Shouhuai Xu, and Taizhong Hu. Modeling multivari­ ate cybersecurity risks. Journal of Applied Statistics, 0(0):1-23, 2018

    2018

  101. [117]

    The unified kill chain

    Paul Pols and Jan van den Berg. The unified kill chain. CSA Thesis, Hague, pages 1-104, 2017

    2017

  102. [118]

    Cyberse­ curity of on-orbit servicing, assembly, and manufacturing ( osam) systems

    Tyler J Ramdass, Ninad Munshi, Richard Kim, and Gregory Falco. Cyberse­ curity of on-orbit servicing, assembly, and manufacturing ( osam) systems. In ASCEND 2022, page 4379. 2022

    2022

  103. [119]

    Death by a thousand cots: Disrupting satellite communications using low earth orbit constellations

    Frederick Rawlins, Richard Baker, and Ivan Martinovic. Death by a thousand cots: Disrupting satellite communications using low earth orbit constellations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.13514, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  104. [120]

    J. L. C. Remy, E. Ear, and S. Xu. Quantifying and reducing system non­ resilience: methodology, metrics, and case study. In Springer Book on Cyber Resilience. 2025. 190

    2025

  105. [121]

    Space cybersecurity testbed: Fidelity framework, example implementation, and char­ acterization

    Jose Luis Castanon Remy, Caleb Chang, Elahin Ear, and Shouhuai Xu. Space cybersecurity testbed: Fidelity framework, example implementation, and char­ acterization. In Proc. of SpaceSec, 2025

    2025

  106. [122]

    SoK: Space infrastructures vulnerabilities, attacks and defenses

    Jose Luis Castanon Remy, Ekzhin Ear, Caleb Chang, Antonia Feffer, and Shouhuai Xu. SoK: Space infrastructures vulnerabilities, attacks and defenses. In Accepted in IEEE S&P. IEEE, 2025

    2025

  107. [123]

    Ensuring the security of space systems from eavesdropping attacks

    Caleb Richardson, Mark Reith, and Wayne Henry. Ensuring the security of space systems from eavesdropping attacks. In International Conference on Cyber Waifare and Security, volume 17, pages 522-526, 2022

    2022

  108. [124]

    Cyber social engineering kill chain

    Rosana Montanez Rodriguez and Shouhuai Xu. Cyber social engineering kill chain. In Proceedings of International Conference on Science of Cyber Security (SciSec'2022), pages 487-504, 2022

    2022

  109. [125]

    Relationships between driver errors and delay discounting in a simulated driving task

    Paul Romanowich, Qian Chen, and Shouhuai Xu. Relationships between driver errors and delay discounting in a simulated driving task. Perspect on Behavior Science, 43(3):487-500, 2020

    2020

  110. [126]

    Building a moat: Fortifying satellite software from vulnerabilities

    Garret J Rose, Wayne Henry, Douglas Hodson, and Gregory Falco. Building a moat: Fortifying satellite software from vulnerabilities. In ASCEND 2022, page

    2022

  111. [127]

    Saltzer and M

    J. Saltzer and M. Schroeder. The protection of information in computer systems. Proceedings of the IEEE, 63(9):1278-1308, 1975

    1975

  112. [128]

    Analysis of vulnerabilities in satellite software bus network architecture

    Adrian Schalk, Luke Brodnik, and Dane Brown. Analysis of vulnerabilities in satellite software bus network architecture. In MILCOM 2022-2022 IEEE Military Communications Conference (MILCOM), pages 350--355. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  113. [129]

    Cyberattacks against NASA

    Bruce Schneier. Cyberattacks against NASA. / /www.schneier.com/blog /archives/ 2 0 0 8 / 12 / cyberattacks_ag.html, 2008. Last accessed: May 2023. 191 https:

    2008

  114. [130]

    Introduction to cybersecurity for commer­ cial satellite operations

    Matthew Scholl and Theresa Suloway. Introduction to cybersecurity for commer­ cial satellite operations. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Tech. Rep, 2021

    2021

  115. [131]

    Does openbsd and firefox's security improve with time? IEEE Trans

    Jian Shi, Deqing Zou, Shouhuai Xu, Xianjun Deng, and Hai Jin. Does openbsd and firefox's security improve with time? IEEE Trans. Dependable Secur. Com- put., 20(4):2781-2793, 2023

    2023

  116. [132]

    Terra calling: Defending and securing the space economy

    Stefan Soesanto. Terra calling: Defending and securing the space economy. Cyberdefense Report, ETH Zurich: Center for Security Studies (CSS). Accessed, 6:2021, 2021

    2021

  117. [133]

    Att&ck 101: Cyber threat intelligence, 2018

    Blake Strom. Att&ck 101: Cyber threat intelligence, 2018

    2018

  118. [134]

    Mitre att&ck: Design and philosophy

    Blake E Strom, Andy Applebaum, Doug P Miller, Kathryn C Nickels, Adam G Pennington, and Cody B Thomas. Mitre att&ck: Design and philosophy. In Technical report. The MITRE Corporation, 2018. [ 135] Theodore Tangie Longtchi, Rosana Montanez Rodriguez, Kora Gwartney, Ekzhin Ear, ...

    2018

  119. [136]

    Satellite-based communications security: A survey of threats, solutions, and research challenges

    Pietro Tedeschi, Savio Sciancalepore, and Roberto Di Pietro. Satellite-based communications security: A survey of threats, solutions, and research challenges. Computer Networks, page 109246, 2022. 192

    2022

  120. [137]

    Understanding and investigating adversary threats and countermea­ sures in the context of space cybersecurity

    Kathiravan Thangavel, Jordan Joseph Plotnek, Alessandro Gardi, and Roberto Sabatini. Understanding and investigating adversary threats and countermea­ sures in the context of space cybersecurity. In 2022 IEEE/A/AA 41st Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), pages 1-10. IE...

    2022

  121. [139]

    Notional risk scores

    The Aerospace Corporation. Notional risk scores. https:// sparta.aerospace.org/notional-risk-scores, 2023. [ 140] The Aerospace Corporation. Risk assessment of a space system. http s : / / sparta.aerospace.org/related-work/risk-assessment, 2023

    2023

  122. [141]

    Space attack research & tactic analysis (SPARTA)

    The Aerospace Corporation. Space attack research & tactic analysis (SPARTA). https: / / sparta.aerospace.org, 2023

    2023

  123. [142]

    The common vul­ nerability scoring system (CVSS) version 4.0: Specification document

    The Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams FIRST. The common vul­ nerability scoring system (CVSS) version 4.0: Specification document. https: //www.first.org/ cvss/v4.0/ specification-document, Novem- ber 2023

    2023

  124. [143]

    Developing scenarios supporting space-based ids

    John P Thebarge, Wayne Henry, and Gregory Falco. Developing scenarios supporting space-based ids. In ASCEND 2022, page 4219. 2022

    2022

  125. [144]

    Hacktivism goes orbital: Investigating nb65's breach of roscosmos

    Rajiv Thummala and Gregory Falco. Hacktivism goes orbital: Investigating nb65's breach of roscosmos. In A/AA SC/TECH 2024 Forum, page 0268, 2024. 193

    2024

  126. [145]

    Space economy is set to soar to 1.8 trillion by

    Linda Tilburg. Space economy is set to soar to 1.8 trillion by

  127. [146]

    Characterizing and leveraging granger causality in cybersecurity: Frame­ work and case study

    Van Trieu-Do, Richard Garcia-Lebron, Maochao Xu, Shouhuai Xu, and Yusheng Feng. Characterizing and leveraging granger causality in cybersecurity: Frame­ work and case study. EA/ Endorsed Trans. Security Safety, 7(25):e4, 2020

    2020

  128. [147]

    Cyber security awareness for smallsat ground networks

    Ted Vera. Cyber security awareness for smallsat ground networks. 2016

    2016

  129. [148]

    How does endpoint detection use the MITRE ATT &CK frame­ work? In 33rd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 24), pages 3891-3908, 2024

    Apurva Virkud, Muhammad Adil Inam, Andy Riddle, Jason Liu, Gang Wang, and Adam Bates. How does endpoint detection use the MITRE ATT &CK frame­ work? In 33rd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 24), pages 3891-3908, 2024

    2024

  130. [149]

    Space missions cybersecurity modelling

    Julio Vivero. Space missions cybersecurity modelling. In 31st A/AA Interna­ tional Communications Satellite Systems Conference, page 5634, 2013

    2013

  131. [150]

    Space mission engineering: the new SMAD

    James Richard Wertz, David F Everett, and Jeffery John Puschell. Space mission engineering: the new SMAD. Microcosm Press, 2011

    2011

  132. [151]

    Asat goes cyber

    Mark Wess. Asat goes cyber. In Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute, volume 147/2/1416. UNI, 2021

    2021

  133. [152]

    Space odyssey: An experimental software security analysis of satellites

    Johannes Willbold, Moritz Schloegel, Manuel Vogele, Maximilian Gerhardt, Thorsten Holz, and Ali Abbasi. Space odyssey: An experimental software security analysis of satellites. In 2023 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), pages 1-19. IEEE, 2023. 194

    2023

  134. [153]

    China key suspect in U.S

    Jim Wolf. China key suspect in U.S. satellite hacks. https: //www.reuters.com/article/us-china-usa-satellite/ china-key-suspect-in-u-s-satellite-hacks-commission- idUSTRE79R40320111028/,2O11

  135. [154]

    L. Xu, Z. Zhan, S. Xu, and K. Ye. An evasion and counter-evasion study in malicious websites detection. In IEEE CNS, pages 265-273, 2014

    2014

  136. [155]

    M. Xu, G. Da, and S. Xu. Cyber epidemic models with dependences. Internet Mathematics, 11(1):62-92, 2015

    2015

  137. [156]

    M. Xu, L. Hua, and S. Xu. A vine copula model for predicting the effectiveness of cyber defense early-warning. Technometrics, 59(4):508-520, 2017

    2017

  138. [157]

    M. Xu, K. M. Schweitzer, R. M. Bateman, and S. Xu. Modeling and predicting cyber hacking breaches. IEEE T-IFS, 13(11):2856-2871, 2018

    2018

  139. [158]

    Xu and S

    M. Xu and S. Xu. An extended stochastic model for quantitative security analysis of networked systems. Internet Mathematics, 8(3):288-320, 2012

    2012

  140. [159]

    S. Xu. Emergent behavior in cybersecurity. In Proc. HotSoS, pages 13:1-13:2, 2014

    2014

  141. [160]

    S. Xu. The cybersecurity dynamics way of thinking and landscape (invited paper). In ACM Workshop on Moving Target Defense, 2020

    2020

  142. [161]

    S. Xu, W. Lu, and L. Xu. Push- and pull-based epidemic spreading in networks: Thresholds and deeper insights. ACM TAAS, 7(3), 2012

    2012

  143. [162]

    S. Xu, W. Lu, L. Xu, and Z. Zhan. Adaptive epidemic dynamics in networks: Thresholds and control. ACM TAAS, 8(4), 2014. 195

    2014

  144. [163]

    S. Xu, W. Lu, and Z. Zhan. A stochastic model of multivirus dynamics. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 9(1):30--45, 2012

    2012

  145. [164]

    Cybersecurity dynamics

    Shouhuai Xu. Cybersecurity dynamics. In Proc. Symposium on the Science of Security (HotSoS'14), pages 14:1-14:2, 2014

    2014

  146. [165]

    Cybersecurity dynamics: A foundation for the science of cyber­ security

    Shouhuai Xu. Cybersecurity dynamics: A foundation for the science of cyber­ security. In Proactive and Dynamic Network Defense, volume 74, pages 1-31. Springer, 2019. [ 166] Shouhuai Xu. Sarr: A cybersecurity metrics and quantification framework. In Third International Confere...

    2019

  147. [168]

    Commercial satellites, critical information infrastructure protec­ tion, and preventing today's threat actors from becoming tomorrow's captain midnight

    Brian Young. Commercial satellites, critical information infrastructure protec­ tion, and preventing today's threat actors from becoming tomorrow's captain midnight. Strat Cyber Defense Multidisc Perspec, 48:86, 2017

    2017

  148. [169]

    A com­ prehensive analysis of security vulnerabilities and attacks in satellite modems

    Lingjing Yu, Jingli Hao, Jun Ma, Yong Sun, Yijun Zhao, and Bo Luo. A com­ prehensive analysis of security vulnerabilities and attacks in satellite modems. In Proceedings of the 2024 on ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 3287-3301, 2024

    2024

  149. [170]

    The protection of space missions: threats and cyber threats

    Stefano Zatti. The protection of space missions: threats and cyber threats. In Information Systems Security: 13th International Conference, ICISS 2017, Mum­ bai, India, December 16-20, 2017, Proceedings 13, pages 3-8. Springer, 2017. 196

    2017

  150. [171]

    Characterizing advanced persistent threats through the lens of cyber attack flows

    Logan Zeien, Caleb Chang, Elczhin Ear, and Dr Shouhuai Xu. Characterizing advanced persistent threats through the lens of cyber attack flows. Military Cyber Affairs, 7(1):5, 2024. [ 172] Logan Zeien, Caleb Chang, Ekzhin Ear, and Shouhuai Xu. Characterizing advanced persistent ...

    2024

  151. [173]

    Smart home cyber insurance pricing

    Xiaoyu Zhang, Maochao Xu, and Shouhuai Xu. Smart home cyber insurance pricing. In Proceedings of International Conference on Science of Cyber Secu- rity (SciSec'2024), 2024

    2024

  152. [174]

    Zheng, W

    R. Zheng, W. Lu, and S. Xu. Active cyber defense dynamics exhibiting rich phenomena. In Proc. HotSoS, 2015

    2015

  153. [175]

    Zheng, W

    R. Zheng, W. Lu, and S. Xu. Preventive and reactive cyber defense dynamics is globally stable. IEEE TNSE, 5(2):156-170, 2018

    2018

  154. [176]

    D. Zou, S. Wang, S. Xu, Z. Li, and H. Jin. µvuldeepecker: A deep learning-based system for multiclass vulnerability detection. IEEE TDSC, 2020

    2020

  155. [177]

    Inter­ preting deep learning-based vulnerability detector predictions based on heuristic searching

    Deqing Zou, Yawei Zhu, Shouhuai Xu, Zhen Li, Hai Jin, and Hengkai Ye. Inter­ preting deep learning-based vulnerability detector predictions based on heuristic searching. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 30(2), March 2021. ProQuest Number: 32002933 INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The...

    2021

  156. [2035]

    https: //nationalsecuritynews.com/2024/04/space­ economy-is-set-to-soar-to-l-8-trillion-by-2035/, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.