IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v235y2023ics0951832023001527.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Playing Bayesian Stackelberg game model for optimizing the vulnerability level of security incident system in petrochemical plants

Author

Listed:
  • Dong, Mingxin
  • Zhang, Zhen
  • Liu, Yi
  • Zhao, Dong Feng
  • Meng, Yifei
  • Shi, Jihao

Abstract

Constrained by the limited security resources of petrochemical plants, optimizing the vulnerability level of the security incident system plays a significant role in preventing and controlling security incidents. Previous research for security vulnerability has concentrated on the protection system, neglecting the influence of interconnections among vulnerability elements. The intelligence and struggle features of Security Incident System Vulnerability (SISV) elements are critical for optimizing the vulnerability level and characterizing the evolution of intelligence of security incident participants. By studying the game characteristics among SISV elements, this paper proposes the Bayesian Stackelberg SISV game model based on the security incident protection model established. In the game model, the strategies for protective vulnerability and aggressive vulnerability are defined as setting the security layer sub-units and the protective vulnerability levels, and setting the intrusion routes and the aggressive vulnerability levels, respectively. The model optimizes the security system vulnerability levels within the different security layer sub-units, based on the available security resources. Despite being demonstrated via an illustrative case, the defender's return on investment is significantly higher by using the SISV game model, the methodology can easily be tailored to a wide variety of petrochemical plants.

Suggested Citation

  • Dong, Mingxin & Zhang, Zhen & Liu, Yi & Zhao, Dong Feng & Meng, Yifei & Shi, Jihao, 2023. "Playing Bayesian Stackelberg game model for optimizing the vulnerability level of security incident system in petrochemical plants," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 235(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:235:y:2023:i:c:s0951832023001527
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2023.109237
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832023001527
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2023.109237?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hausken, Kjell, 2008. "Strategic defense and attack for series and parallel reliability systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(2), pages 856-881, April.
    2. Rezazadeh, Amirali & Talarico, Luca & Reniers, Genserik & Cozzani, Valerio & Zhang, Laobing, 2019. "Applying game theory for securing oil and gas pipelines against terrorism," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    3. Casson Moreno, Valeria & Marroni, Giulia & Landucci, Gabriele, 2022. "Probabilistic assessment aimed at the evaluation of escalating scenarios in process facilities combining safety and security barriers," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    4. van Staalduinen, Mark Adrian & Khan, Faisal & Gadag, Veeresh & Reniers, Genserik, 2017. "Functional quantitative security risk analysis (QSRA) to assist in protecting critical process infrastructure," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 23-34.
    5. Jun Zhuang & Vicki M. Bier, 2007. "Balancing Terrorism and Natural Disasters---Defensive Strategy with Endogenous Attacker Effort," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 55(5), pages 976-991, October.
    6. Necci, Amos & Cozzani, Valerio & Spadoni, Gigliola & Khan, Faisal, 2015. "Assessment of domino effect: State of the art and research Needs," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 3-18.
    7. Johansson, Jonas & Hassel, Henrik, 2010. "An approach for modelling interdependent infrastructures in the context of vulnerability analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(12), pages 1335-1344.
    8. Laobing Zhang & Genserik Reniers, 2016. "A Game‐Theoretical Model to Improve Process Plant Protection from Terrorist Attacks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(12), pages 2285-2297, December.
    9. Hausken, Kjell, 2008. "Strategic defense and attack for reliability systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 93(11), pages 1740-1750.
    10. Talarico, Luca & Reniers, Genserik & Sörensen, Kenneth & Springael, Johan, 2015. "MISTRAL: A game-theoretical model to allocate security measures in a multi-modal chemical transportation network with adaptive adversaries," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 105-114.
    11. Misuri, Alessio & Khakzad, Nima & Reniers, Genserik & Cozzani, Valerio, 2019. "A Bayesian network methodology for optimal security management of critical infrastructures," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    12. Chen, Chao & Reniers, Genserik & Khakzad, Nima, 2019. "Integrating safety and security resources to protect chemical industrial parks from man-made domino effects: A dynamic graph approach," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    13. Zhang, Laobing & Reniers, Genserik & Qiu, Xiaogang, 2019. "Playing chemical plant protection game with distribution-free uncertainties," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    14. Matteini, Anita & Argenti, Francesca & Salzano, Ernesto & Cozzani, Valerio, 2019. "A comparative analysis of security risk assessment methodologies for the chemical industry," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    15. Zhang, Laobing & Reniers, Genserik & Chen, Bin & Qiu, Xiaogang, 2019. "CCP game: A game theoretical model for improving the scheduling of chemical cluster patrolling," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    16. K Hausken & J Zhuang, 2012. "The timing and deterrence of terrorist attacks due to exogenous dynamics," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 63(6), pages 726-735, June.
    17. Argenti, Francesca & Landucci, Gabriele & Reniers, Genserik & Cozzani, Valerio, 2018. "Vulnerability assessment of chemical facilities to intentional attacks based on Bayesian Network," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 515-530.
    18. Aven, Terje, 2007. "A unified framework for risk and vulnerability analysis covering both safety and security," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 92(6), pages 745-754.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Iaiani, Matteo & Sorichetti, Riccardo & Tugnoli, Alessandro & Cozzani, Valerio, 2024. "Modelling standoff distances to prevent escalation in shooting attacks to tanks storing hazardous materials," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Casson Moreno, Valeria & Marroni, Giulia & Landucci, Gabriele, 2022. "Probabilistic assessment aimed at the evaluation of escalating scenarios in process facilities combining safety and security barriers," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    2. Iaiani, Matteo & Sorichetti, Riccardo & Tugnoli, Alessandro & Cozzani, Valerio, 2024. "Modelling standoff distances to prevent escalation in shooting attacks to tanks storing hazardous materials," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    3. Szidarovszky, Ferenc & Luo, Yi, 2014. "Incorporating risk seeking attitude into defense strategy," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 104-109.
    4. Sushil Gupta & Martin K. Starr & Reza Zanjirani Farahani & Mahsa Mahboob Ghodsi, 2020. "Prevention of Terrorism–An Assessment of Prior POM Work and Future Potentials," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(7), pages 1789-1815, July.
    5. Shan, Xiaojun & Zhuang, Jun, 2018. "Modeling cumulative defensive resource allocation against a strategic attacker in a multi-period multi-target sequential game," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 12-26.
    6. Peiqiu Guan & Jun Zhuang, 2015. "Modeling Public–Private Partnerships in Disaster Management via Centralized and Decentralized Models," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 12(4), pages 173-189, December.
    7. Zhang, Jing & Zhuang, Jun & Jose, Victor Richmond R., 2018. "The role of risk preferences in a multi-target defender-attacker resource allocation game," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 95-104.
    8. Hausken, Kjell, 2017. "Special versus general protection and attack of parallel and series components," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 239-256.
    9. Shan, Xiaojun & Zhuang, Jun, 2013. "Hybrid defensive resource allocations in the face of partially strategic attackers in a sequential defender–attacker game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(1), pages 262-272.
    10. Liang, Liang & Chen, Jingxian & Siqueira, Kevin, 2020. "Revenge or continued attack and defense in defender–attacker conflicts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 287(3), pages 1180-1190.
    11. Zhang, Laobing & Reniers, Genserik & Qiu, Xiaogang, 2019. "Playing chemical plant protection game with distribution-free uncertainties," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    12. Ben Yaghlane, Asma & Azaiez, M. Naceur, 2017. "Systems under attack-survivability rather than reliability: Concept, results, and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(3), pages 1156-1164.
    13. Zhang, Laobing & Reniers, Genserik & Chen, Bin & Qiu, Xiaogang, 2019. "CCP game: A game theoretical model for improving the scheduling of chemical cluster patrolling," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    14. Peiqiu Guan & Jun Zhuang, 2016. "Modeling Resources Allocation in Attacker‐Defender Games with “Warm Up” CSF," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 776-791, April.
    15. Hunt, Kyle & Agarwal, Puneet & Zhuang, Jun, 2022. "On the adoption of new technology to enhance counterterrorism measures: An attacker–defender game with risk preferences," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 218(PB).
    16. Zhuang, Jun & Bier, Vicki M. & Alagoz, Oguzhan, 2010. "Modeling secrecy and deception in a multiple-period attacker-defender signaling game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 203(2), pages 409-418, June.
    17. Reniers, Genserik & Soudan, Karel, 2010. "A game-theoretical approach for reciprocal security-related prevention investment decisions," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 1-9.
    18. Ye, Zhi-Sheng & Peng, Rui & Wang, Wenbin, 2017. "Defense and attack of performance-sharing common bus systemsAuthor-Name: Zhai, Qingqing," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 256(3), pages 962-975.
    19. Ding, Long & Khan, Faisal & Ji, Jie, 2022. "A novel vulnerability model considering synergistic effect of fire and overpressure in chemical processing facilities," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    20. Gao, Xing & Zhong, Weijun & Mei, Shue, 2013. "A game-theory approach to configuration of detection software with decision errors," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 35-43.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:235:y:2023:i:c:s0951832023001527. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/reliability-engineering-and-system-safety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.