IRJET- Architectural Modeling and Cybersecurity Analysis of Cyber-Physical Systems - A Technical Review

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056
Volume: 05 Issue: 12 | Dec 2018 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2018, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 7.211 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 1107
Architectural Modeling and Cybersecurity Analysis of Cyber-Physical
Systems - A Technical Review
Sachin Sen1, Paul Pang2
1Lecturer (Part-Time), Dept. of Computer Science, Unitec Institute of technology, Auckland, New Zealand
2 Professor, Dept. of Computer Science, Unitec Institute of technology, Auckland, New Zealand
---------------------------------------------------------------------***----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract:- Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) are
heterogeneous systems in which computing and
communication systems are interacting and controlling
physical dynamics. By the best use of computing devices,
communication technologies and being integrated with
physical systems, CPS have been leveraging the economy.
But as the CPS research is still in its early stages, lacks
sufficient standards, and efficient system architectures; as a
result, CPS research is progressing slowly. On the other
hand, due to its integration with the public internet, security
has become a critical concern. This technical review has
focused on architectural modeling by splitting the CPS in
different categories, as well as analyzes foreseeable
cybersecurity concerns. The review also has identified some
challenges and issues of this emerging systems and has
explored future research directions.
Key Words: Technical review, cyber-physical systems,
Internet of Things, cyber domain, physical domain, CPS,
IoT.
1. INTRODUCTION
THIS technical review has produced a comprehensive
report on Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) and the Internet
of Things (IoT) by addressing architectural modeling and
analyzing cybersecurity aspects of these technologies. A
CPS is a mechanism tightly integrated with the internet
and its users, which is controlled by computer-based
algorithms. Physical and software components are deeply
interconnected in CPS, each operating on different spatial
and temporal scales, exhibiting distinct and multiple
behavioral modalities, and interacting with each other in
many ways which change with context [1]. The Internet of
Things can be defined as the network of home appliances,
physical devices, vehicles and other items embedded with
electronics, software, sensors, actuators, and connectivity
which enables these things to exchange and connect data
[2]–[4]. IoT has created more opportunities for more
direct integration of the physical world into computer
based systems, resulting in reduced human exertion,
economic benefits, and efficiency improvements [5]–[7].
CPS are being leveraged by the IoT and/or IoE due to their
similarity of application areas. CPS and the IoT are similar
in their functions and share the same basic architecture.
Nevertheless, CPS presents a higher level of coordination
and more potential combinations between physical and
computational elements [8]. An integration between the
cyber and physical worlds, along with the interaction with
the IoT, has been reflected in Figure 1.
Fig. 1. Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) Integrated with the
Internet of Things (IoT).
CPS are an emerging technology and have attracted the
attention of a large amount of researchers, business
communities, and industries. The ”cyber system” typically
consists of computing, control, and networking, while the
”physical dynamics” include the mechanical, electrical,
thermal, biological, and chemical behaviors of the physical
entities. The National Science Foundation (NSF) of the USA
identified CPS as a key research area in 2008, and was
listed as the number one research priority by the
President’s Council of advisors of the US on science and
technology [9]. The modern grand vision of real-world CPS
have been enabled by the heterogeneous composition of
computing, sensing, actuation, and network
communication [10]. In CPS, computing, networked
communication, and control are closely tied with the
physical dynamics [11]. The CPS is the computer
controlled Physical System and communicated through
Computing Networks; it requires a certain layered
approach, which may not be similar to the traditional
Computing Networks, due to the different nature of CPS.

The way in which we conduct business, entertainment,
studies, research, etc. has been influenced by the internet
over the last few years, however, there are still some gaps
in information exchanging in the physical world; CPS is
intended to fill out those gaps by providing a broader view
of how the computing domain interacts with the physical
domain [12]. CPS possess multi-dimensional system
features which integrate and coordinate between physical
control and computing processes, combined with the
network of distributed elements with the capability of
computation, communication, and control, and highly rely
on tight collaboration of those capabilities [13]. Due to
their heterogeneity and sophistication, CPS require radical
changes in the way sense and control platforms are
designed to regulate the whole collaborative system [11].
CPS are used for communication, control, and computation
of data from physical entities by using sensors. CPS can be
used in social behavior optimization, as the world we live
in consists of many varieties of societal elements such as
animals, birds, insects, and humans, and their complex
social behaviors can have effects on the world around
them. CPS can be used to monitor and optimize the social
behavior of these social elements [14]. The major
application of CPS are in the area of intelligent transport
systems, smart national infrastructure, national healthcare
systems, robotic control systems, and/or any national
disaster situations or emergencies. The common feature of
those systems/applications is that those require a large
number of sensors to be deployed over a wider area in
order to implement complex control and monitoring
functions [15]. Therefore, in order to transport real-time
information from a wide number of sensors, the main
challenge is to develop a scalable communication
architecture [15].
CPS could form and interact through wired, wireless, or
mobile network media, therefore, CPS can be operated
through the combination of these three categories of
network media. The system’s physical dynamics will be
sensed through IP-based sensors; the sensors will form a
Wireless Based Access Networks (WBAN) in a
heterogeneous environment. Therefore, the
communication within the WBAN will occur through a
multi-layered communication model or platform, as per
requirements of the specific application area or scenario.
The communication architecture which suits Wireless
Sensor and Actuator Networks (WSAN), and specifically, is
suitable for IP-based Sensor Networks (IPSN), are more
appropriate in this environment. A number of papers have
been written, published, and presented in the
internationally reputable communities, journals and
symposiums regarding the architecture of the CPS and
communication platform within the CPS environment.
CPS are systems of collaborating computational elements
controlling physical entities, and thus can be found in
areas as diverse as the aerospace and automotive
industries, chemical processes, civil infrastructure, energy,
healthcare, manufacturing, transportation, entertainment,
and consumer appliances. This system is often referred to
as embedded systems; in embedded systems the emphasis
tends to be more on the computational elements, and less
on an intense link between the computational and physical
elements.
This review will produce a comprehensive report about
the technical aspects of CPS, focusing on the architectural
modeling, cybersecurity, issues, and applications of the
whole CPS infrastructure. The rest of the document is
organized as follows: Section II will provide an overview
of Cyber-Physical Systems, which will include a brief
history of CPS, why CPS are required, notations and
definitions used in the report, and categorization of the
CPS architecture. Section III through to Section V will
discuss different categories of CPS, category-wise CPS
architectures, their modeling, system stabilization, etc.
Section VI will outline the design challenges considering
application aspects and issues. Section VII will analyze
cybersecurity, security issues, and challenges. Finally,
section VIII will conclude the report with some future
research directions.
2. OVERVIEW OF CYBER-PHYSICAL SYSTEMS
Technical advances in computing and information
technology have reached such an era that computers and
computing technology have made dramatic changes to the
people of the world and their lives. People used to think of
the computer as a PC and computing as browsing the
network and the internet, whereas now most computers
and computing devices in the world have become
components of CPS.
In the cyber-physical context, different domains such as
electronic system design, control theory, real-time
systems, and software engineering are involved; the
communication in which links among sensors,
computational systems, and actuators, is another
important aspect of the cyber physical systems [16]. A
cyber-physical network is designed to access different
types of networks such as Wireless Local Area Networks
(WLAN) and Wide Area Wireless Access Networks
(WWLAN) ubiquitously; Jia Shen et al. in [17], have
proposed such a CPS multilayer heterogeneous
framework. The networked computing systems with the
integration of physical systems/processes have evolved
the new generation CPS with the combination of science,
technology and engineering. The CPS use network
communication and computation that embeds and
interacts with physical dynamics to add newer capabilities
to the physical processes. In CPS, a physical layer

transports data from the physical dynamics to the cyber
layer through the communication network, and the cyber
layer transmits instructions using man-machine interface
or actuators to the physical layer [18]. The
interconnection between the physical world and the
virtual world is reflected by these cyber-physical
interactions; a graphical representation of such cyber and
physical interaction has been given in [18] as Figure 2.
Fig. 2. CPS Architecture of Interaction between Physical
and Cyber World.
CPS have been leveraging the economy by the best use of
computers, computing devices, network
computing/communication technology, integrated with
physical systems. CPS range from small scale physical
systems such as pacemakers to huge scale national
infrastructures. As CPS have been interacting among
physical systems and computing and networked
communications, they have evolved from the combination
of computer science and engineering, rather than from just
one or the other. Therefore, this is a completely newly
evolved technology which utilizes both computer science
and engineering methodologies. The cyber world has
explored this new era of technology where the existing
technologies such as computing, computer science,
engineering, and engineering science contribute hugely.
The complete Cyber-Physical System is specifically
designed as a network of elements interacting with
physical input and output instead of the devices running
standalone, which ties closely with sensor networks and
the robotics concept.
2.1 Background and Context
CPS are critical to real-time awareness of the environment
or situation, are used to control a broad growing range of
applications, which include medical devices, advanced
robotic devices, autopilot systems, smart energy-efficient
buildings, modern agricultural systems, and advanced
manufacturing systems [19]. Due to integrated solution
methods and their usefulness for monitoring and
optimizing growing critical physical environments, CPS
have attracted industries, universities, the world’s major
vendors, and motivated researchers to put significant
attention towards the research of the capability and
effectiveness of CPS.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) of the USA was
attracted by the growing technology of CPS since 1995 and
started finding more about this growing technology; they
have funded a significant amount for CPS research since
then [18]. In addition to funding, NSF has been organizing
regular technology events and conferences on CPS, and
especially since 2008, CPS week has been held by the NSF
on a regular basis [18].
Today, Cyber-Physical Systems are one of the central
attractions of international research and business
communities, and appear in the world’s top platforms like
ACM and IEEE. Both ACM and IEEE have been organizing
the ”International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems
(ICCPS)” regularly every year since 2010 at different world
venues. Cyber-Physical Systems are a new generation’s
engineered systems, and have integrated computational
and physical capabilities, and embedded computing
interacts with humans through many new modalities. This
allows for quick detection and reporting of necessary
physical dynamics, due to the capability of CPS and their
integration of computational and physical processes [20].
CPS provide real-time, secure, dependable, and efficient
operations for quality data communications.
Embedded computing systems add capabilities to the
physical systems, which in turn make the computer
controlled physical systems increasingly efficient.
Networked communication and computation integrating
with physical systems evolve a new era of opportunities,
which is more efficient, reduces building and operating
costs, and also adds new capabilities in managing complex
physical system dynamics. CPS are an application-specific
technology, and its decreased cost of sensing, computation,
and networking are technological and economic drivers for
a new era of computing. More efficient technology and
lower operation costs are the main economical drivers
which push CPS to the technological forefront as new and
modern engineering systems.
It is generally acknowledged that the embedded computing
system allows people to add capabilities to physical
processes or systems, and that there seems to be no other
alternate technology which allows for performing and
gaining such computing advantages. Integrated computing
and mechanical systems can produce smart automobile
systems, computing system integrated with electrical
power systems can make national infrastructure Smart
Grid systems, and computing and communication systems,
when integrated with robotics systems, evolve to form
efficient cyber-physical robotic systems, the applications of
which include smart health systems, disaster management,
and emergency situation management.

Therefore, by merging communication and computing with
physical dynamics, we can see that CPS bring tremendous
benefits to the way the physical world is being interacted.
In CPS, individual computing devices, when working
together, can form complex systems, resulting in new
capabilities which are safer, more efficient, and effectively
allow for a reduction in terms of cost. Though CPS has been
identified as one of the major evolving technologies, it’s
research still in the early stage. The CPS communication,
therefore, do not have established architectures and
standards; this necessitates architectural modeling of this
huge technology. The CPS technology can support from
small scale pace maker to large scale smart grid as well as
smart transport systems, which can result in a very
complex management and operation procedures.
Therefore, the CPS needs to split into different categories
as proposed in the next section and model accordingly, in
order to make it’s management and operation easier.
2.2 Categorization of Cyber-Physical Systems
In Cyber-Physical Systems, when we consider monitoring
or optimizing physical dynamics, often questions arise,
such as (1) ”what to perform”, (2) ”how to perform” and
(3) ”when to perform”. These questions also depend on
the types of environments or situations that are to be
handled.
”What to perform” refers to the physical dynamics of the
system, such as properties, status, and other necessary
parameters of the physical systems or entities. These
physical dynamics are varied in nature for different
physical entities or applications. ”When to perform” asks
for perfect timing of the physical dynamics of the systems
to be monitored and optimized. CPS are used to deal with
real-time data, and therefore the dynamics are to be
sensed in real-time.
Though data, properties, or parameters are different for
different physical systems, ”what to perform” and ”when
to perform” are common to most systems, i.e. how real-
time data or dynamics should be sensed for all physical
entities in CPS.
The other question, ”how to perform”, depends on the
environment. CPS expect to perform in any situation or
environment. This could be sensing data for a single
physical entity like health monitoring of a single patient, a
robotic surgery system, or traffic monitoring for certain
parts of a city, etc. CPS can be applied for bulk sensor
networks in a distributed system, such as a massive
disaster situation, city wide traffic monitoring, i.e. for vast
area-wide systems. We can also apply Cyber-Physical
Robotic Systems (CPRS), where we can use a single robot
or robot teams for interacting with certain situations such
as remote human unreachable disaster situations, smart
manufacturing plants, smart gardens, etc. We can use
wireless sensors for all of those situations, like integrated
smaller systems or distributed systems. Due to the major
development of mobile handheld equipment, we can
collect real-time information or data through mobile or
handheld devices. This could include the robotics
technology as well. For example, we can collect security
information like intruder or burglar alarm data through
smart mobile phones, we can collect real-time information
about traffic incidents through mobile devices, and we can
even manage smart construction systems using network
connections from smart tablets. Mobile robot teams can be
very useful for a search and rescue situations in a disaster
event. Nowadays, a number of handheld devices, such as
PDAs, smart 4G phones, Windows phones, tablets and
iPads are available, which are very useful in
communicating real-time information as and when
required.
Based on the nature of the cyber-physical environments
and different situations discussed above, the CPS are
categorized as, (1) Integrated Cyber-Physical Systems
(ICPS), (2) Distributed Cyber-Physical Systems (DCPS),
and (3) Mobile Cyber-Physical Systems (MCPS).
In CPS, it is obvious that communication needs to be real-
time, faster, secure, and lossless. The communication
domains interact with the physical domains using real-
time computing and control in order to meet the
environment of the physical domains, where services are
required to collect real-time parameters of the physical
dynamics. In CPS, the communication domain uses
Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN) to collect real-time
dynamics sensed from the physical entities. Data
communication can also occur through hand-held mobile
devices as well.
The Cyber-Physical Architectures are formed according to
the category of the CPS and obviously, according to the
requirements of specific applications. Table I shows the
characteristics of Different Cyber-Physical Systems. The
categorized CPS and their architectures are discussed in
details in the following three sections.

3. INTEGRATED CYBER-PHYSICAL SYSTEMS
The traditional Cyber-Physical Systems are referred to as
integrated, contained in a local area, are real-time, and are
securely communicated between the communication
domain and physical domain using sensors, actuators, and
the computational units. Examples of such systems are
control of nuclear power plants, robot controlled remote
surgery, flight control for fighter jets, security systems for
buildings, etc. [21].
3.1 Architecture of Integrated CPS
The cyber-physical architectures of integrated CPS are
application-specific and the control area is localized. The
research base of CPS depends on an accurate architecture,
whereas there aren’t any generalized architectures or
frameworks to be used in most of the applications [22].
The architecture of this category of CPS are vertically
integrated [21]. The architectures of integrated CPSs vary
from application to application; for example, the CPS
architecture of monitoring city traffic is different to that of
health monitoring systems. Following figure 3 is a sample
architecture of such systems.
3.2 Modeling and Stability Analysis of Integrated
CPS
In any complex system design, mathematical modelling is
very important, especially for physical systems, as no
physical system is deterministic. In [23], Ghorbani et al.
have provided a mathematical model to capture
characteristics of the dynamics of blood glucose. Stability
of the system also is a major concern. When CPS is applied
to manage and monitor a critical situation, the instability
would cause due to delay in communication, which also
could cause packet
Fig. 3. A sample Integrated CPS Architecture.
loss during data transfer. Therefore, system stabilization
would have to be considered seriously in such system
design considerations. This report has reviewed modelling
and stability of CPS using a Passivity Model proposed in
[24].
A system is passive or stable when a storage function
exists and the stored system energy is bounded by the
supplied energy to the system [24]. The powerful tool for
system analysis and control system design, is the
raditional passive
TABLE I CHARACTERISTICS OF DIFFERENT CYBER-PHYSICAL SYSTEMS
Types of CPS Categorywise Characteristics of Cyber-Physical Systems
Definitions of Different Category CPS Architectural
Approach
Communication and
Control
Integrated CPS Traditional, localized control Top-down Locally
Distributed CPS Physical devices are widely distributed, sensors
arbitrarily distributed and sensed data contain
external environmental input
Both Top-down and
Bottom-up
Globally
Mobile CPS System controlled with mobile/handheld
devices, therefore mobility and motion controls
are taken into account
Both Top-down and
Bottom-up
Locally and Globally

4. DISTRIBUTED CYBER-PHYSICAL SYSTEMS
In distributed CPS, the physical entities are widely
distributed and wireless sensors are arbitrarily
distributed, so that they can sense the complete system
jointly; there would be a network infrastructure which will
communicate through the whole sensor system [27], [28].
Examples of distributed Cyber-Physical Systems include
city-wide Transport Network management, Power
Distribution Smart Grid, Irrigation Hydro-Power Network,
etc. [27]–[29].
4.1 Architecture of Distributed Cyber-Physical
Systems
Distributed CPS is a heterogeneous system, where a huge
physical system infrastructure, with large-scale
computation and communication systems, becomes a
complex hybrid system. It would really be a difficult
environmental aspect to deal with. Goswami et al. in [30]
have shown that, in the case of distributed control
applications, hybrid protocols (time-triggered and event-
triggered) do not perform well, therefore by re-
engineering the control applications, has found better
results that the communication occurs in two modes
instead of the hybrid modes.
In distributed CPS architecture, the system architecture
required to handle huge number of nodes, therefore, in
order to proof the concept, a large test-bed requires
testing and validation of the concept. Tennina et al. in [31]
have introduced a large-scale system architecture, named
EMMON, which was tested in dense and real-time
embedded monitoring, that included 300+ wireless sensor
nodes and according to them, this was the largest test-bed
introduced so far in Europe for such system testing.
In order to support safety critical real-time control of
distributed systems, CPS require an appropriate
architecture suitable for widely distributed systems.
Benveniste in his paper [32], has proposed a Loosely
Time-Triggered architecture, which is comprehensive, but
computation and communication units are triggered by
autonomous, non-synchronized clocks. Yong et al. in [26]
has proposed an architecture for DCPS with an application
for Smart Transport systems. Figure 4 shows a sample
architecture applicable to distributed CPS.
Fig. 4. A Sample Architecture for Distributed CPS.
4.2 Modeling and Stability Analysis of Distributed
CPS
In [33], Woochul Kang et al. have introduced a Real-Time
Data Distributed Service (RDDS) for CPS, where, they
considered a fire-fighting team involved in a search and
rescue task; each fire-fighter is equipped with a PDA
collecting dynamic statuses through nearby sensors, then

collaborating and sending information back to the cyber
systems. They used a test bed with fixed network that
didn’t consider environmental impacts on the information
processed. Therefore, they have shortcomings of providing
accurate information; this situation needs to consider the
external inputs for data accuracy due to the distributed
open system. As physical systems are not deterministic, in
CPS, physical systems are modelled using the control
theory with the use of differential equations, that are
strongly dependent on time variation; the cyber systems,
i.e. the computational part uses a discrete-event model of
mathematics, therefore, the whole cyber and physical
systems, together, become a hybrid model. In distributed
CPS, a large number of agents or systems are connected; in
order to model and stabilize such huge heterogeneous
systems, it needs to use a multi-node approach with the
passivity model. In handling faults and stabilizing such
heterogeneous complex systems, a number of the state
variable of remote nodes need to be estimated with the
best possible accuracy [34]. The challenging aspects of
stabilizing a heterogeneous distributed complex system
are crucial; an approach to compositionality involves using
passivity theory, and with some assumptions, the system
can be made stable [35].
Now, by manipulating the abovementioned state space
system, using the similar concept of section 3, the
distributed system can be stabilized. Detailed calculation
has been found in [35].
Theorem 4.1, By categorizing the distributed agents into
symmetrical groups and with the application of local
control laws, the stability conditions for large-scale
systems can be derived [36].
Theorem 4.2, In the interconnected heterogeneous and
distributed systems, symmetries are obtained through
identical dynamics of subsystems and by characterizing
the structure of collected information [35], [37].
5. MOBILE CYBER-PHYSICAL SYSTEMS
Nowadays, there are plenty of handheld devices available,
which utilize mobile networks to communicate with each
other, as well as with the internet. The increasing
popularity of these handheld or mobile devices has
increased the idea and interest of the mobile CPS concept.
As portable computing machines, mobile devices are
widely accepted; their accelerated processing power,
pervasive cellular connections and range of sensors, have
become the ideal platform for building Cyber-Physical
Systems [38]. Mobile devices such as WiFi and Bluetooth-
enabled smart phones and tablets are becoming more and
more intelligent from day-by-day communication through
mobile networks. High level programming languages are
also being developed and are readily available for their
intelligent communications. Also, mobile robotics systems
can be applied in controlling intensive production in
agricultural and industrial sectors, and help in search and
rescue events. In situations like an intensive greenhouse
horticultural system, where the environment is optimal
for plants but unhealthy for humans, using mobile robots
can be very useful alternatives [39]. Robot-controlled
medical systems are also a potential cyber-physical area.
Minimally invasive surgical processes, which are robot-
assisted and image-guided, are evolving fast due to their
potential effectiveness and improved patient management
[40].
5.1 Architecture of Mobile Cyber-Physical
Systems
As stipulated in [41], real-time video of rush hour traffic
can be shared through internet, or real-time video of
house surveillance cameras can be received through
mobile phones if an abnormal situation is detected. Real-
time video monitoring with cyber-physical surveillance
systems is becoming a popular cyber-physical application
[42]. AnySence, a Communication Architecture for
ubiquitous Video-Based Cyber-Physical Systems, has been
proposed in [41].
Mobile CPS applications have a huge potential for the new
century’s computing and IT revolution, which includes:
high confidence medical systems, traffic control and
managing traffic situations, advanced automotive systems,
and more manageable disaster recovery systems, etc. [38].
Robots or robot teams are also examples of mobile
physical entities and the communication domain
interacting with these mobile teams form effective Cyber-
Physical Robotic Systems (CPRS). CPRS are very effective if

engaged in the management of disasters, search and
rescue situations, in the manufacturing industries, and in
the management of healthcare systems. Therefore, the
CPRS could become a very useful CPS sub-category.
Mobile CPS are used for the purpose of tracking and
controlling mobile systems comprising of mobile devices.
Like ICPS and DCPS, MCPS architectures control the
sensor-rich real-time embedded systems, which closely
interact with the physical world; such systems collect data
from the physical domain, using sensors and feed the
collected sensor data to the computing resources for
making real-time decisions. Hanz and Guirguis in [43], has
proposed a layered architecture, which is capable of
controlling the motion of cyber-physical mobile devices.
Figure 5 shows a sample architecture for Mobile CPS.
Fig. 5. A sample Layered Mobile CPS Architecture.
5.2 Modeling and Stability Analysis of Cyber-
Physical Robotic System
In mobile CPS, a cyber-physical robotic system is very
useful as discussed above. In this chapter, we shall review
a system for modelling and stabilizing a mobile robotic
system applied to robotic motion control. In mobile CPS
such as the mobile motion control of robots, where the
system is a distributed parameter system, the system state
will evolve along both time and space; in this situation,
instead of traditional finitely dimensioned input-output
relationships, partial differential equations would be more
suitable for modeling the system [44]. Assuming a robotic
system for analysis of its motion control and stabilization,
let us consider a dynamic equation for the robot control
systems; dynamic equations are derived for any
mechanical systems using the Euler-Lagrange equation
below [45]:
Now using the processes of section 3 and 4, the above
robotic state space model can be stabilized.
6. DESIGN CHALLENGES OF CYBER-PHYSICAL
SYSTEMS
This section will explain the challenges in designing the
CPS of the heterogeneous, hybrid, and complex physical
domain. This chapter will also discuss the security issues
and security design concepts in this evolutionary
technology space. Subsection A will discuss the application

aspects in the design of Cyber-Physical Systems.
Subsection B will discuss about issues and challenges in
the design of Cyber-Physical Systems.
6.1 Application aspects of the Cyber-Physical
Systems Design
Cyber-Physical Systems deal with complex and critical
application areas, therefore it is vital to consider the
aspects and natures of different applications which will be
benefited by CPS technology. With the advancement of CPS
technology comes huge applications such as e-health
systems, traffic control and safety, advanced automotive
systems, process control, energy conservation,
environmental control, avionics, instrumentation, and
defence systems, all of which will be benefited by adapting
modern systems [47].
Cyber-Physical applications are growing fast, and the
application areas are widening to include vast ranges of
complex systems which are heterogeneous in nature. CPS
applications range from small-scale, safety-critical
pacemaker controllers to largescale distributed Smart
Grids [48]. While these systems have great potential, they
require fundamental reassessments of the prevailing
paradigms in communication and computation
abstractions [48].
CPS are including more and more applications; this in
future might expand to be applied to each and every
computing capable application to improve their extreme
capability. Jason et al. in [49] has proposed a cyber
physical approach to be used for Graphical Processing
Units (GPU), and their experiment has shown that the GPU
tasks can be completed 34 percent faster than with the
existing methods.
Common applications of CPS typically fall under sensor-
based communication-enabled autonomous systems. For
example, many wireless sensor networks monitor some
aspect of the environment and relay the processed
information to a central node. Other types of CPS include
smart grids, autonomous auto-mobile systems, medical
systems monitoring, process control systems, distributed
robotics, and space aircrafts.
The systems that require measuring and monitor large
amounts of information are equipped with a large network
of wireless sensors; CPS are increasingly being used for
such huge systems. Examples include health care systems,
medical devices, smart grid, intelligent transportation
systems, and advanced auto-mobile systems [50], [51].
The aircraft or the space vehicles, due to its autonomous
movement and functionality, can be considered as the
prime examples of cyber-physical systems [52].
CPS are spreading to the smart transport sectors,
advanced and modern agricultural systems and many
more areas. Transport systems like Railway Cyber-
Physical Systems (RCPS) require interaction between train
controllers, communication networks, and the physical
world [53]. In RCPS, behaviour of the physical world such
as velocity, flow and density are all dynamic and changing
continuously, therefore the control and communication
architecture is totally different, and will integrate all
varied natures of those parameters [53]. An integrated
CPS which is designed to include all of those optimizations
would deliver a very smart and advanced RCPS.
Air-Transport is another highly prospective transport
system; Cyber-Physical Aerospace Systems (CPAS) involve
communication, sensing, and actuation of widely
distributed physical devices and computational
components through the heterogeneous computing
environment of physical processes [54]. Therefore, CPAS
require close interaction between cyber and physical
worlds, both in time and space, and needs new methods of
characterizing and controlling dynamic processes across a
heterogeneous network of sensors and computational
devices [54].
Another typical CPS example of the Smart Grid system is
the Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), in which a
large amount of data from thousands of meters are
collected and processed through an AMI [15]. A Smart Grid
is defined as the integration of digital computing and
communication technologies with power-delivery
infrastructure; the smart grid is an example of critical
cyber-physical system in the modern world [55]. Georg et
al. has introduced INSPIRE, a Hybrid Simulator
Architecture which is capable of evaluating both Power
Systems and ICT Networks [56].
Kinsy et al in [48] has shown how to build a
heterogeneous architecture for power electronics which is
an emerging field of CPS; they designed the architecture
which enables high fidelity with 1 microsecond latency
and emulation time-step.
Cyber-Physical Energy Systems (CPES) is another
potential CPS area which operates with the integration of
IT and physical processing, with Local and Wide Area
Communication Networks [56]. An interesting
architecture for Cyber-Physical Energy Systems (CPES)
has been proposed in [57] which could be useful for
intelligent charging systems for electric vehicles. Figure 6
shows the proposed architecture of such a CPES as
stipulated in [57].

Fig. 6. An Architecture of a Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS)
application [57].
6.2 Issues and Challenges of the Design of Cyber-
Physical Systems
Due to a hybrid nature and heterogeneous characteristics,
the operation and maintenance, as well as the designs of
cyber-physical components, are a very complex task. One
of the most complex systems is CPRS, where the software
and hardware structures are very complex; these are
becoming more and more complex over the recent years.
These systems often consist of a few subsystems which
need to be arranged and operated in a decentralized
situation, and therefore those complexities can lead to
serious problems maintaining and operating the system,
even during the design phase [60]. The cyber domain is
controlled by discrete mathematical logic, whereas the
physical domain is controlled by state feedback control
laws. Physical properties or the dynamics of a system are
modelled to a state space system, using mathematical
relations, normally by forming differential equations in
order to determine physical dynamics for monitoring and
optimization. Due to the heterogeneous nature and
differences in dynamics of different physical systems, the
design task of CPS leads to a great challenge. It is easy to
write the requirements of the physical domain in
languages, but while designing, significant issues arise due
to the difficulty of deriving mathematical relations such as
state space systems. There would be a great research
opportunity stemming from designing a robotic CPS
architecture, although this can lead to a big challenge due
to the mobile nature of robots. In order to determine the
state of the environment, advanced robotic hardware
systems are equipped with sensors and effectors.
Therefore, building a cyber-physical infrastructure
controlling a robot is a huge challenge [61].
CPS in real-life such as building automation systems and
unmanned automotive vehicles are controlled by network
control systems, and the system dynamics emerged
through the interactions between computing,
communication, and physical dynamics [10], [25].
Monitoring and optimizing the physical dynamics of
building automation systems are not similar in nature, and
can be compared to that of unmanned automotive
vehicles. Similarly, the variation in the requirements will
be found in other systems, such as controlling and tracking
mobile robot teams, smart power grids, smart gardens,
national health care systems, etc. When designing a
complex system, system failure has to be an important
consideration during the design; a failure of the cyber
system may not necessarily stop the operation or change
the behavior of the networked elements, but will impact
the performance of those elements when a potential or
major failure occurs [62], [63]. Another issue is, CPS
contain a huge number of wireless sensors, but due to the
limited bandwidth and heavy interference in the wireless
sensor networks, the efficient allocation of network
resources is a major design concern [64]. The Wireless
Sensor Network (WSN) adopted in the CPS are facing more
stringent design challenges in comparison to the
conventional WSNs, because the WSN in CPS must have
good scalability, perform with low latency, and be energy
efficient [65], [66]. For some of the systems, where
environmental factors such as temperature, weather, and
water conditions change frequently, it is difficult to
estimate accurate data; CPS design of such physical
domains thus presents itself to inherent issues [67].
Another major issue that has been noticed during this
study is the delay in delivery of packets through the
network. Cyber-Physical networks are designed to carry
mainly delay-sensitive real-time information. Today’s
internet does not guarantee bandwidth for real-time
delivery; current internet architectures are working on the
best effort basis.
7. CYBERSECURITY OF IOT AND CYBER-PHYSICAL
SYSTEMS
Due to the innovative discovery of Cyber-Physical Systems
and their diversification of human benefits, interconnected
Internet of Things-based devices are increasing
exponentially, which leads to privacy issues and security
challenges being introduced [83]. IoT-based devices would
become more pervasive than even mobile phones, and
would have access to peoples sensitive personal
credentials such as usernames, passwords, etc., which
could be an easy cyberattack target of hackers; a variety of
cyberattacks could be caused due to the vulnerabilities of
smart IoT devices, which the hackers will consider the
weakest link in order to break the sensitive and secure
infrastructures [84].

7.1 Cybersecurity Issues and System
Vulnerabilities
Security in the CPS spaces is getting another major
concern. While managing CPS locally at a smaller scale,
security may not be a major concern; when the system
actuation is extended through to the internet, the system
may exhibit security vulnerability. According to Borg [59],
company executives and key researchers are moving into
the crosshairs of the cyberhackers worse than ever before
(this has never happened in the past), as hackers are
increasingly targeting industrial equipment, particularly
focusing on hardware, i.e. process control, including
programmable logic controllers and local networks; this
could hurt the affected company by resulting drop in the
stock price due to possible failure of quality control. The
cyberhackers could earn more money than from a credit
card fraud, and could even advantage them further by
taking position in the stock market [51]. With the Internet
of Things in place, these security risks are increasing;
systems will be more vulnerable when more physical
infrastructures are connected to the internet. Figure 7 is
showing such a vulnerability in CPS.
Fig. 7. Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) and the Internet of
Things (IoT) with a Vulnerable Physical Device.
The Chief Security Officr of PTC, a Massachusetts-based
software firm, Corman, Josh, raised his concern about the
vulnerability of IoT due to there being more physical
systems and facilities connected to wireless networks,
which will be difficult to tackle with the traditional IT
security methods [58].
According to Corman in [58], the following are six burning
issues due to vulnerabilities in the IoT and Cyber-Physical
Communication networks:
• Consequences of security failure would be more
serious and no doubt would be very urgent, when
digital cars or infusion pumps are attacked; this will
result in destroying peoples lives.
• The nationwide hacking system is an all-out cyber
war; today’s adversaries are no longer hackers trying
to make money, or cause mischief, but rather bring
IoT security to face special challenges.
• Some software vendors and chip makers recently
offered 10-years and 7-years of support for IoT
products, whereas others either limit their support to
2 or 3 years, or don’t even provide any specified
support contract yet, which could turn into
vulnerability in security.
• Economics is another issue, as in some cases, a
connected product that generates small profits might
require patches, updates, and security evaluations;
those must cause added costs to the product and will
impact the profit, or if the updates are not done,
might cause security vulnerabilities.
• Corman’s fifth reason is to do with the scary reality of
the weak link being the vulnerability, when connected
devices are built with firmware, software, and
hardware by different companies; the company that
creates telematics of a not updating the software
could cause the entire car to be vulnerable.
• The sixth reason is about connected devices in live
environments unlike any IT system; for example, in
smart homes, there is no software expert/manager to
apply patches to connected fridges, which may turn
into facing a vulnerability risk.
Therefore, maintaining the above as well as securing big
plants, networks, and establishments, cybersecurity is of
paramount importance and addressing it is required for
the success of IoT/CPS operations in the Cyber-
Communication space.
7.2 Cyber-Attack System Modeling and Analysis
Increasingly, control system networks are being
connected to enterprise networks; the control system
networks that possess critical control systems may be
vulnerable to cyberattacks [68]. Some specific examples of
CPS are smart grids, pervasive healthcare systems,
unmanned air vehicles, etc.; in the modern world, these

are becoming integrated, and as the integration deepens,
securing these systems becomes more important [69].
When systems are being developed and combined to form
the CPS, the total risk of the whole system would definitely
be much greater than those of the component systems
[70]. In recent years, attacks on software are spreading to
the embedded systems and the incidents like the Stuxnet
attack, which are attacks in the automation systems, are
possible because the computational and physical dynamics
are these days being connected to the internet [71], [72].
There haven’t been many attacks yet on CPS, because most
of the CPS models use their proprietary protocols, but in
the future, more attacks can be expected in this area,
because of the interaction between CPS and the internet
[73]. The security would be more vulnerable with the
interconnection to the public internet; this would have
been a much bigger concern with the new internet
concept, i.e. the Internet of Things or the Internet of
Everything. IoT vulnerabilities are caused by there being
more physical systems and facilities connected to Wireless
Sensor Networks (WSN) [58]. CPS systems for national
infrastructures, such as national power grids, smart
energy systems, advanced metering infrastructures, etc.
are becoming increasingly at risk, as the cyber security
incidents have gained increasing credibility as viable risks
to those huge infrastructures [74]. Now, these are being
connected to the internet, and thus the risk of attack will
increase [72].
As the CPSs are related to the physical systems,
equipment, humans, national infrastructures, expensive
establishments, and critical infrastructures, the damage
would definitely be larger and may not be recoverable,
therefore attacks on CPS should be taken very seriously
[75]. The issues of security and safety are of greater
importance for pervasive computing, although this is a
great concern regardless [76]. Preschern et al [72], has
built a security model one-out-of-two (1oo2) on the basis
of the paper by Kai Hansen [77], which covers possible
attacks and outcome and discussed the attack scenarios
from an attacker’s point of view.
This type of security measure may protect systems to
some extent, but with the new internet concept, the risk of
attacks will increase that may not be covered by this. Let
us consider a CPS/IoT-based Wireless Sensor Network
(WSN) under attack as shown in figure 8. In this figure, we
can see two scenarios, (a) Scenario One (Star Network
topology) and (b) Scenario Two (Closed Loop Ring
network topology). In Scenario One, the target vulnerable
device is behind three nodes from the attack point, where
the attacker needs to travel two hops, and in Scenario
Two, the target vulnerable device is behind four nodes
from the attack point, where the attacker needs to travel
three hops. Therefore, if the target vulnerable device is
behind N nodes, the attacker needs to travel N − 1 hopes
and the associated matrices of attack inputs would be in
the form of an identity matrix.
Fig. 8. CPS/IoT based Wireless Sensor Network (WSN)
under Attack.
While designing the security of a critical infrastructure, it
is mandatory to consider possible attacks to the system.
When stepping in to investigate the security of a system,
the first

Most embedded systems or CPS systems are designed
without security in mind, and these systems are normally
protected by firewalls, which do not ensure the security
for attacks from within the systems, therefore security has
to be part of the design process of CPS in order to provide
sufficient protection [82].
8. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH
DIRECTIONS
In this technical review, we have studied and analyzed
currently available works, experiments, and research
available for Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS); its’ current
architectures, models, and possible cybersecurity issues
are also analyzed and discussed in detail. Along with other
wide uses, the Internet of Things (IoT) is the most
revolutionary application of CPS. Therefore, CPS have
become paramount and are at the centre of attraction for
researchers, major network vendors, university and
institutional researchers, as well as industries and
business communities. For easy management and
operation, CPS are categorized in three different classes:
Integrated CPS, Distributed CPS, and Mobile CPS. A
comprehensive review has been made and discussed
about the communication architectures and modeling of
all three categories. While reviewed, due to the
heterogeneous and hybrid complex nature of the physical
dynamics of different systems, it has been found that
concrete common architecture and standards have not yet
been developed.
The architectural modeling in this technical review
includes mathematical modling, in order to stabilize the
systems against disturbances; by considering those
disturbances as attack inputs. In addition, a cybersecurity
attack model has also been analyzed and discussed as part
of this technical review. To explore further, in the future,
we can consider some use cases of CPS and IoT
infrastructures to investigate their current model
including cybersecurity vulnerabilities; this will help
instigate and propose architectural improvements along
with cyber-safe security measures. In these future
researches, we might consider different classes of CPS
architectures as has been categorized in this technical
review; this might narrow down the research works to
facilitate detailed investigation.
REFERENCES
[1] ”US National Science Foundation (NSF), Cyber-
Physical Systems
(CPS): https://www.nsf.gov/publications/
[2] Brown, Eric (20 September 2016). ”21 Open Source
Projects for IoT”. https://www.linux.com/NEWS/21-
OPEN-SOURCE-PROJECTSIOT. Retrieved 23 October
2017.
[3] ”Internet of Things Global Standards Initiative”.
https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-
T/gsi/iot/Pages/default.aspxITU. Retrieved 28 July
2016.
[4] Hendricks, Drew. ”The Trouble with the Internet of
Things”. London Datastore. Greater London Authority.
https://data.london.gov.uk/blog/the-trouble-with-
the-internet-of-things/ Retrieved 06 August 2016.
[5] Vermesan, Ovidiu; Friess, Peter (2014). Internet of
Things: Converging Technologies for Smart
Environments and Integrated Ecosystems (PDF).
Aalborg, Denmark: River Publishers. ISBN 978-87-
92982-96-4.
[6] Mattern, Friedemann; Floerkemeier, Christian. ”From
the Internet of Computers to the Internet of Things”
(PDF). ETH Zurich. Retrieved 23 October 2016.
[7] Santucci, Grald. ”The Internet of Things: Between the
Revolution of the Internet and the Metamorphosis of
Objects” (PDF). European Commission Community
Research and Development Information Service.
Retrieved 23 October 2016.
[8] Rad, Ciprian-Radu; Hancu, Olimpiu; Takacs, Ioana-
Alexandra; Olteanu, Gheorghe (2015). ”Smart
Monitoring of Potato Crop: A Cyber-Physical System
Architecture Model in the Field of Precision
Agriculture”.
Conference Agriculture for Life, Life for Agriculture. 6:
7379.
[9] Jiankun Hu, H.R. Pota, and Song Guo. Taxonomy of
attacks for agent based smart grids. Parallel and
Distributed Systems, IEEE Transactions on,
25(7):18861895, July 2014.
[10] N. Kottenstette, J.F. Hall, X. Koutsoukos, J. Sztipanovits,
and P. Antsaklis. Design of networked control systems
using passivity. Control Systems Technology, IEEE
Transactions on, 21(3):649665, May 2013.
[11] P. Nuzzo, J.B. Finn, A Iannopollo, and AL. Sangiovanni-
Vincentelli. Contract-based design of control protocols
for safety-critical cyberphysical systems. In Design,
Automation and Test in Europe Conference and
Exhibition (DATE), 2014, pages 14, March 2014.
[12] J.R.B. Garay and S.T. Kofuji. Architecture for sensor
networks in cyberphysical system. In
Communications (LATINCOM), 2010 IEEE Latin
American Conference on, pages 16, Sept 2010.
[13] Wei Meng, Quan Liu, Wenjun Xu, and Zude Zhou. A
cyber-physical system for public environment
perception and emergency handling. In High
Performance Computing and Communications
(HPCC), 2011 IEEE 13th International Conference on,
pages 734738, Sept 2011.
[14] J. Nielsen, L. Rock, B. Rogers, A Dalia, J. Adams, and
Yang-Quan Chen. Automated social coordination of
cyber-physical systems with mobile actuator and

sensor networks. In Mechatronics and Embedded
Systems and Applications (MESA), 2010 IEEE/ASME
International Conference on, pages 554559, July 2010.
[15] Jiazhen Zhou, R.Q. Hu, and Yi Qian. Scalable
distributed communication architectures to support
advanced metering infrastructure in smart grid.
Parallel and Distributed Systems, IEEE Transactions
on, 23(9):16321642, Sept 2012.
[16] D. Quaglia. Cyber-physical systems: Modeling,
simulation, design and validation. In Embedded
Computing (MECO), 2013 2nd Mediterranean
Conference on, pages 12, June 2013.
[17] Jia Shen, Fei Xu, Xiangyou Lu, and Huafei Li.
Heterogeneous multilayer wireless networking for
mobile cps. In Ubiquitous Intelligence Computing and
7th International Conference on Autonomic Trusted
Computing (UIC/ATC), 2010 7th International
Conference on, pages 223227, Oct 2010.
[18] Li Yongfu, Sun Dihua, Liu Weining, and Zhang Xuebo.
A service oriented architecture for the transportation
cyber-physical systems. In Control Conference (CCC),
2012 31st Chinese, pages 76747678, July 2012.
[19] R. Marculescu. Design of future integrated systems: A
cyber-physical systems approach. In Power and
Timing Modeling, Optimization and Simulation
(PATMOS), 2013 23rd International Workshop on,
pages 11, Sept 2013.
[20] B. Syed, A Pal, K. Srinivasarengan, and P.
Balamuralidhar. A smart transport application of
cyber-physical systems: Road surface monitor-
ing with mobile devices. In Sensing Technology (ICST),
2012 Sixth International Conference on, pages 812,
Dec 2012.
[21] T. Wolf, M. Zink, and A Nagurney. The cyber-physical
marketplace: A framework for large-scale horizontal
integration in distributed cyber physical systems. In
Distributed Computing Systems Workshops
(ICDCSW), 2013 IEEE 33rd International Conference
on, pages 296302, July 2013.
[22] Liang Hu, Nannan Xie, Zhejun Kuang, and Kuo Zhao.
Review of cyber physical system architecture. In
Object/Component/Service-Oriented Real-Time
Distributed Computing Workshops (ISORCW), 2012
15th IEEE International Symposium on, pages 2530,
April 2012.
[23] M. Ghorbani and P. Bogdan. A cyber-physical system
approach to artificial pancreas design. In
Hardware/Software Codesign and System Synthesis
(CODES+ISSS), 2013 International Conference on,
pages 110, Sept 2013.
[24] J. Sztipanovits, X. Koutsoukos, G. Karsai, N.
Kottenstette, P. Antsaklis, V. Gupta, B. Goodwine, J.
Baras, and Shige Wang. Toward a science of cyber-
physical system integration. Proceedings of the IEEE,
100(1):2944, Jan 2012.
[25] N. Kottenstette, X. Koutsoukos, J. Hall, J. Sztipanovits,
and P. Antsaklis. Passivity-based design of wireless
networked control systems for robustness to time-
varying delays. In Real-Time Systems Symposium,
2008, pages 1524, Nov 2008.
[26] C.I Byrnes, A Isidori, and J.C. Willems. Passivity,
feedback equivalence, and the global stabilization of
minimum phase nonlinear systems.
Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on,
36(11):12281240, Nov 1991.
[27] S. Deshmukh, B. Natarajan, and A Pahwa. State
estimation over a lossy network in spatially
distributed cyber-physical systems. Signal Processing,
IEEE Transactions on, 62(15):39113923, Aug 2014.
[28] S. Deshmukh, B. Natarajan, and A Pahwa. State
estimation in spatially distributed cyber-physical
systems: Bounds on critical measurement drop rates.
In Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems (DCOSS),
2013 IEEE International Conference on, pages
157164, May 2013.
[29] J. Taneja, R. Katz, and D. Culler. Defining cps
challenges in a sustainable electricity grid. In Cyber-
Physical Systems (ICCPS), 2012 IEEE/ACM Third
International Conference on, pages 119128, April
2012.
[30] D. Goswami, R. Schneider, and S. Chakraborty. Re-
engineering cyberphysical control applications for
hybrid communication protocols. In Design,
Automation Test in Europe Conference Exhibition
(DATE), 2011, pages 16, March 2011.
[31] S. Tennina, M. Bouroche, P. Braga, R. Gomes, M. Alves,
F. Mirza, V. Ciriello, G. Carrozza, P. Oliveira, and V.
Cahill. Emmon: A wsn system architecture for large
scale and dense real-time embedded monitoring. In
Embedded and Ubiquitous Computing (EUC), 2011
IFIP 9th International Conference on, pages 150157,
Oct 2011.
[32] A. Benveniste. Loosely time-triggered architectures
for cyber-physical systems. In Design, Automation
Test in Europe Conference Exhibition (DATE), 2010,
pages 38, March 2010.
[33] Woochul Kang, K. Kapitanova, and Sang Hyuk Son.
Rdds: A real time data distribution service for cyber-
physical systems. Industrial Informatics, IEEE
Transactions on, 8(2):393405, May 2012.
[34] F.A.T. Abad, M. Caccamo, and B. Robbins. A fault
resilient architecture for distributed cyber-physical
systems. In Embedded and RealTime Computing
Systems and Applications (RTCSA), 2012 IEEE 18th
International Conference on, pages 222231, Aug 2012.
[35] P.J. Antsaklis, M.J. McCourt, Han Yu, Po Wu, and Feng
Zhu. Cyberphysical systems design using dissipativity.
In Control Conference (CCC), 2012 31st Chinese,
pages 15, July 2012.
[36] Po Wu and P.J. Antsaklis. Symmetry in the design of
large-scale complex control systems: Some initial

results using dissipativity and lyapunov stability. In
Control Automation (MED), 2010 18th Mediterranean
[37] Po Wu and P.J. Antsaklis. Passivity indices for
symmetrically interconnected distributed systems. In
Control Automation (MED), 2011 19th Mediterranean
[38] Jae Yoo Lee, Du Wan Cheun, and Soo Dong Kim. A
comprehensive framework for mobile cyber-physical
applications. In Service-Oriented Computing and
Applications (SOCA), 2011 IEEE International
Conference on, pages 16, Dec 2011.
[39] R. Garro, L. Ordinez, and O. Alimenti. Design patterns
for cyber physical systems: The case of a robotic
greenhouse. In Computing System Engineering
(SBESC), 2011 Brazilian Symposium on, pages 1520,
Nov 2011.
[40] E. Yeniaras, J. Lamaury, Zhigang Deng, and N.V.
Tsekos. Towards a new cyber-physical system for mri-
guided and robot-assisted cardiac procedures. In
Information Technology and Applications in
Biomedicine (ITAB), 2010 10th IEEE International
Conference on, pages 15, Nov 2010.
[41] Guoliang Xing, Weijia Jia, Yufei Du, Posco Tso, Mo Sha,
and Xue Liu. Toward ubiquitous video-based cyber-
physical systems. In Systems, Man and Cybernetics,
2008. SMC 2008. IEEE International Conference on,
pages 4853, Oct 2008.
[42] Pengbo Si, F.R. Yu, and Yanhua Zhang. Qos- and
security-aware dynamic spectrum management for
cyber-physical surveillance system. In Global
Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), 2013
IEEE, pages 962967, Dec 2013.
[43] T. Hanz and M. Guirguis. An abstraction layer for
controlling heterogeneous mobile cyber-physical
systems. In Automation Science and Engineering
(CASE), 2013 IEEE International Conference on, pages
117121, Aug 2013.
[44] C. Tricaud and YangQuan Chen. Optimal trajectories of
mobile remote sensors for parameter estimation in
distributed cyber-physical systems. In American
Control Conference (ACC), 2010, pages 32113216,
June 2010.
[45] R. Ortega and M.W. Spong. Adaptive motion control of
rigid robots: a tutorial. In Decision and Control, 1988.,
Proceedings of the 27th IEEE Conference on, pages
15751584 vol.2, Dec 1988.
[46] E. R. Westervelt, J.W. Grizzle, and D.E. Koditschek.
Hybrid zero dynamics of planar biped walkers.
Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on, 48(1):4256,
Jan 2003.
[47] E.A Lee. Cyber physical systems: Design challenges. In
Object Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing
(ISORC), 2008 11th IEEE International Symposium on,
pages 363369, May 2008.
[48] M. Kinsy, O. Khan, Ivan Celanovic, D. Majstorovic, N.
Celanovic, and S Devadas. Time-predictable computer
architecture for cyber-physical systems: Digital
emulation of power electronics systems. In Real-Time
Systems Symposium (RTSS), 2011 IEEE 32nd, pages
305316, Nov
2011.
[49] J. Aumiller, S. Brandt, S. Kato, and N. Rath. Supporting
low-latency cps using gpus and direct i/o schemes. In
Embedded and Real-Time Computing Systems and
Applications (RTCSA), 2012 IEEE 18th International
Conference on, pages 437442, Aug 2012.
[50] Min Ding, Haifeng Chen, A Sharma, K. Yoshihira, and
Guofei Jiang. A data analytic engine towards self-
management of cyber-physical systems. In Distributed
Computing Systems Workshops (ICDCSW), 2013 IEEE
33rd International Conference on, pages 303308, July
2013.
[51] B. Stelte and G.D. Rodosek. Assuring trustworthiness
of sensor data for cyber-physical systems. In
Integrated Network Management (IM 2013), 2013
IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on, pages
395402, May 2013.
[52] A.T. Klesh, J.W. Cutler, and E.M. Atkins. Cyber-physical
challenges for space systems. In Cyber-Physical
Systems (ICCPS), 2012 IEEE/ACM Third International
Conference on, pages 4552, April 2012.
[53] Lichen Zhang. Aspect-oriented approach to modeling
railway cyber physical systems. In Distributed
Computing and Applications to Business, Engineering
Science (DCABES), 2013 12th International
Symposium on, pages 2933, Sept 2013.
[54] Lichen Zhang. Multi-view approach for modeling
aerospace cyberphysical systems. In Green Computing
and Communications (GreenCom), 2013 IEEE and
Internet of Things (iThings/CPSCom), IEEE
International Conference on and IEEE Cyber, Physical
and Social Computing, pages 13191324, Aug 2013.
[55] A.P. Athreya and P. Tague. Survivable smart grid
communication: Smartmeters meshes to the rescue. In
Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC),
2012 International Conference on, pages 104110, Jan
2012.
[56] H. Georg, S.C. Muller, N. Dorsch, C. Rehtanz, and C.
Wietfeld. Inspire: Integrated co-simulation of power
and ict systems for real-time evaluation. In Smart Grid
Communications (SmartGridComm), 2013 IEEE
International Conference on, pages 576581, Oct 2013.
[57] Yongqi Ge, Yunwei Dong, and Hongbing Zhao. A cyber-
physical energy system architecture for electric
vehicles charging application. In Quality Software
(QSIC), 2012 12th International Conference on, pages
246250, Aug 2012.
[58] S. Higginsbotham. Internet of Everything: 6 Ways IoT
is Vulnerable, IEEE Spectrum, Page 21, July 2018.

[59] S. Borg (Director, U.S., Cyber Consequences Unit), To
Design Better Hardware, Think Like a Cyber-Criminal.
At the MEMS and Sensors Technical Congress held at
Stanford University, California, USA, to an audience of
130 Chief Technical Officers, Engineering Directors
and Key Researchers, IEEE Spectrum, Page 22, July
2017.
[60] R. Maas, E. Maehle, and K.-E. Grosspietsch. Applying
the organic robot control architecture orca to cyber-
physical systems. In Software Engineering and
Advanced Applications (SEAA), 2012 38th
EUROMICRO Conference on, pages 250257, Sept 2012.
[61] S. Szominski, K. Gadek, M. Konarski, B. Blaszczyk, P.
Anielski, and W. Turek. Development of a cyber-
physical system for mobile robot control using erlang.
In Computer Science and Information Systems
(FedCSIS), 2013 Federated Conference on, pages
14411448, Sept 2013.
[62] B. Falahati and Yong Fu. Reliability assessment of
smart grids considering indirect cyber-power
interdependencies. Smart Grid, IEEE Transactions on,
5(4):16771685, July 2014.
[63] S. Graham, G. Baliga, and P.R. Kumar. Abstractions,
architecture, mechanisms, and a middleware for
networked control. Automatic Control, IEEE
Transactions on, 54(7):14901503, July 2009.
[64] Xufei Mao, Chi Zhou, Yuan He, Zheng Yang, Shaojie
Tang, and Weichao Wang. Guest editorial: Special
issue on wireless sensor networks, cyber-physical
systems, and internet of things. Tsinghua Science and
Technology, 16(6):559560, Dec 2011.
[65] Xi Deng and Yuanyuan Yang. Communication
synchronization in cluster-based sensor networks for
cyber-physical systems. Emerging Topics in
Computing, IEEE Transactions on, 1(1):98110, June
2013.
[66] Sajal K. Das. Cyber-physical and networked sensor
systems: Challenges and opportunities. In Advanced
Intelligence and Awareness Internet (AIAI 2011),
2011 International Conference on, pages 11, Oct 2011.
[67] Dong Li, Ze Zhao, Li Cui, He Zhu, Le Zhang, Zhaoliang
Zhang, and Yi Wang. A cyber physical networking
system for monitoring and cleaning up blue-green
algae blooms with agile sensor and actuator control
mechanism on lake tai. In Computer Communications
Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS), 2011 IEEE
Conference on, pages 732737, April 2011.
[68] Seddik M. Djouadi, Alexander M. Melin, Erik M.
Ferragut, Jason A Laska, and Jin Dong. Finite energy
and bounded attacks on control system sensor signals.
In American Control Conference (ACC), 2014, pages
17161722, June 2014.
[69] Robert Mitchell and Ing-Ray Chen. A survey of
intrusion detection techniques for cyber-physical
systems. ACM Comput. Surv., 46(4):55:155:29, March
2014.
[70] C.W. Axelrod. Managing the risks of cyber-physical
systems. In Systems, Applications and Technology
Conference (LISAT), 2013 IEEE Long Island, pages 16,
May 2013.
[71] R. Langner. Stuxnet: Dissecting a cyberwarfare
weapon. Security Privacy, IEEE, 9(3):4951, May 2011.
[72] C. Preschern, N. Kajtazovic, and C. Kreiner. Built-in
security enhancements for the 1oo2 safety
architecture. In Cyber Technology in Automation,
Control, and Intelligent Systems (CYBER), 2012 IEEE
International Conference on, pages 103108, May
2012.
[73] L. Pietre-Cambacedes, M. Tritschler, and G.N. Ericsson.
Cybersecurity myths on power control systems: 21
misconceptions and false beliefs. Power Delivery,
IEEE Transactions on, 26(1):161172, Jan 2011.
[74] A. Hahn, A. Ashok, S. Sridhar, and M. Govindarasu.
Cyber-physical security testbeds: Architecture,
application, and evaluation for smart grid. Smart Grid,
IEEE Transactions on, 4(2):847855, June 2013.
[75] J. Wan. Advances in cyber-physical systems research.
In KSII Transactions on Internet and Information
Systems, vol. 5, no. 11, pp. 18911908, 2011, page
18911908, October 2011.
[76] Steven J. Templeton. Security aspects of cyber-
physical device safety in assistive environments. In
Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on
Pervasive Technologies Related to Assistive
Environments, PETRA 11, pages 53:153:8, New York,
NY, USA, 2011. ACM.
[77] K. Hansen. Security attack analysis of safety systems.
In Emerging Technologies Factory Automation, 2009.
ETFA 2009. IEEE Conference on, pages 14, Sept 2009.
[78] R. Mitchell and Ing-Ray Chen. Survivability analysis of
mobile cyber physical systems with voting-based
intrusion detection. In Wireless Communications and
Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC), 2011 7th
International, pages 22562261, July 2011.
[79] F. Pasqualetti, F. Dorfler, and F. Bullo. Attack detection
and identification in cyber-physical systems.
Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on,
58(11):27152729, Nov 2013.
[80] F. Pasqualetti, F. Dorfler, and F. Bullo. Cyber-physical
security via geometric control: Distributed monitoring
and malicious attacks. In Decision and Control (CDC),
2012 IEEE 51st Annual Conference on, pages
34183425, Dec 2012.
[81] Fabio Pasqualetti, Florian Dorfler, and F. Bullo. Cyber-
physical attacks in power networks: Models,
fundamental limitations and monitor design. In
Decision and Control and European Control
Conference (CDC-ECC), 2011 50th IEEE Conference
on, pages 21952201, Dec 2011.

[82] M. Naedele. Addressing it security for critical control
systems. In System Sciences, 2007. HICSS 2007. 40th
Annual Hawaii International Conference on, pages
115115, Jan 2007.
[83] K. Reeves and C. Maple, ”IoT interoperability: Security
considerations and challenges in implementation,”
Living in the Internet of Things: Cybersecurity of the
IoT - 2018, London, 2018, pp. 1-7. doi:
10.1049/cp.2018.0007
[84] E. Anthi, L. Williams and P. Burnap, ”Pulse: An
adaptive intrusion detection for the Internet of
Things,” Living in the Internet of Things:
Cybersecurity of the IoT - 2018, London, 2018, pp. 1-4.
doi: 10.1049/cp.2018.0035

IRJET- Architectural Modeling and Cybersecurity Analysis of Cyber-Physical Systems - A Technical Review

More Related Content

What's hot (19)

Similar to IRJET- Architectural Modeling and Cybersecurity Analysis of Cyber-Physical Systems - A Technical Review (20)

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

IRJET- Architectural Modeling and Cybersecurity Analysis of Cyber-Physical Systems - A Technical Review