IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wut/journl/v3y2014p23-44id1105.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choosing what to protect when attacker resources and asset valuations are uncertain

Author

Listed:
  • Kjell Hausken

Abstract

The situation has been modelled where the attacker’s resources are unknown to the defender. Protecting assets presupposes that the defender has some information on the attacker’s resource capabilities. An attacker targets one of two assets. The attacker’s resources and valuations of these assets are drawn probabilistically. We specify when the isoutility curves are upward sloping (the defender prefers to invest less in defense, thus leading to higher probabilities of success for attacks on both as- sets) or downward sloping (e.g. when one asset has a low value or high unit defense cost). This stands in contrast to earlier research and results from the uncertainty regarding the level of the attacker’s resources. We determine which asset the attacker targets depending on his type, unit attack costs, the contest intensity, and investment in defense. A two stage game is considered, where the defender moves first and the attacker moves second. When both assets are equivalent and are treated equivalently by both players, an interior equilibrium exists when the contest intensity is low, and a corner equilibrium with no defense exists when the contest intensity is large and the attacker holds large resources. Defense efforts are inverse U shaped in the attacker’s resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Kjell Hausken, 2014. "Choosing what to protect when attacker resources and asset valuations are uncertain," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 24(3), pages 23-44.
  • Handle: RePEc:wut:journl:v:3:y:2014:p:23-44:id:1105
    DOI: 10.5277/ord140302
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ord.pwr.edu.pl/assets/papers_archive/1105%20-%20published.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5277/ord140302?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kjell Hausken, 2012. "On The Impossibility Of Deterrence In Sequential Colonel Blotto Games," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(02), pages 1-13.
    2. Powell, Robert, 2007. "Allocating Defensive Resources with Private Information about Vulnerability," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 101(4), pages 799-809, November.
    3. Vicki Bier & Santiago Oliveros & Larry Samuelson, 2007. "Choosing What to Protect: Strategic Defensive Allocation against an Unknown Attacker," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 9(4), pages 563-587, August.
    4. Stergios Skaperdas, 1996. "Contest success functions (*)," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 7(2), pages 283-290.
    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. Levitin, Gregory & Hausken, Kjell, 2013. "Is it wise to leave some false targets unprotected?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 176-186.
    7. Bruno S. Frey & Simon Luechinger, "undated". "How to Fight Terrorism: Alternatives to Deterrence," IEW - Working Papers 137, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    8. 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.
    9. Powell, Robert, 2009. "Sequential, nonzero-sum "Blotto": Allocating defensive resources prior to attack," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 611-615, November.
    10. Russell Golman & Scott Page, 2009. "General Blotto: games of allocative strategic mismatch," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 138(3), pages 279-299, March.
    11. Mark Fey, 2008. "Rent-seeking contests with incomplete information," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 135(3), pages 225-236, June.
    12. Jun Zhuang & Vicki Bier, 2011. "Secrecy And Deception At Equilibrium, With Applications To Anti-Terrorism Resource Allocation," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 43-61.
    13. Levitin, Gregory & Hausken, Kjell, 2009. "False targets efficiency in defense strategy," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(1), pages 155-162, April.
    14. Bernhardt, Dan & Polborn, Mattias K., 2010. "Non-convexities and the gains from concealing defenses from committed terrorists," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(1), pages 52-54, April.
    15. Powell, Robert, 2007. "Defending against Terrorist Attacks with Limited Resources," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 101(3), pages 527-541, August.
    16. Sandler, Todd & Lapan, Harvey E., 1988. "The Calculus of Dissent: An Analysis of Terrorists' Choice of Targets," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10818, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    17. 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.
    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. Wei Wang & Francesco Di Maio & Enrico Zio, 2019. "Adversarial Risk Analysis to Allocate Optimal Defense Resources for Protecting Cyber–Physical Systems from Cyber Attacks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2766-2785, December.
    2. Bose, Gautam & Konrad, Kai A., 2020. "Devil take the hindmost: Deflecting attacks to other defenders," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    3. Hausken, Kjell, 2017. "Defense and attack for interdependent systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 256(2), pages 582-591.
    4. Li, Qing & Li, Mingchu & Tian, Yuan & Gan, Jianyuan, 2023. "A risk-averse tri-level stochastic model for locating and recovering facilities against attacks in an uncertain environment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    5. Ríos Insua, David & Cano, Javier & Pellot, Michael & Ortega, Ricardo, 2016. "Multithreat multisite protection: A security case study," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 252(3), pages 888-899.
    6. João Ricardo Faria & Andreas Novak & Aniruddha Bagchi & Timothy Mathews, 2020. "The Refugee Game: The Relationship between Individual Security Expenditures and Collective Security," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-13, June.
    7. Qingqing Zhai & Rui Peng & Jun Zhuang, 2020. "Defender–Attacker Games with Asymmetric Player Utilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 408-420, February.
    8. Gatmiry, Zohreh S. & Hafezalkotob, Ashkan & Khakzar bafruei, Morteza & Soltani, Roya, 2021. "Food web conservation vs. strategic threats: A security game approach," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 442(C).
    9. Ryoji Makino & Kenju Akai & Jun-ichi Takeshita & Takanori Kudo & Keiko Aoki, 2021. "Effect of disclosing the relation between effort and unit reliability on system reliability: An economic experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-18, April.
    10. Peng, Rui & Xiao, Hui & Guo, Jianjun & Lin, Chen, 2020. "Defending a parallel system against a strategic attacker with redundancy, protection and disinformation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    11. Konrad, Kai A., 2020. "Attacking and defending multiple valuable secrets in a big data world," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 280(3), pages 1122-1129.
    12. Hunt, Kyle & Agarwal, Puneet & Zhuang, Jun, 2021. "Technology adoption for airport security: Modeling public disclosure and secrecy in an attacker-defender game," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 207(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. Mohammad E. Nikoofal & Mehmet Gümüs, 2015. "On the value of terrorist’s private information in a government’s defensive resource allocation problem," IISE Transactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(6), pages 533-555, June.
    2. Qingqing Zhai & Rui Peng & Jun Zhuang, 2020. "Defender–Attacker Games with Asymmetric Player Utilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 408-420, February.
    3. Nakao, Keisuke, 2017. "Denial vs. Punishment: Strategies Shape War, but War Itself Affects Strategies," MPRA Paper 81418, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Timothy Mathews & Anton D. Lowenberg, 2012. "The Interdependence Between Homeland Security Efforts of a State and a Terrorist’s Choice of Attack," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(2), pages 195-218, April.
    5. Nikoofal, Mohammad E. & Zhuang, Jun, 2015. "On the value of exposure and secrecy of defense system: First-mover advantage vs. robustness," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(1), pages 320-330.
    6. 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.
    7. Jie Xu & Jun Zhuang, 2016. "Modeling costly learning and counter-learning in a defender-attacker game with private defender information," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 236(1), pages 271-289, January.
    8. Mohammad E. Nikoofal & Jun Zhuang, 2012. "Robust Allocation of a Defensive Budget Considering an Attacker's Private Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 930-943, May.
    9. Jenelius, Erik & Westin, Jonas & Holmgren, Åke J., 2010. "Critical infrastructure protection under imperfect attacker perception," International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 16-26.
    10. Levitin, Gregory & Hausken, Kjell, 2009. "False targets vs. redundancy in homogeneous parallel systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 588-595.
    11. Levitin, Gregory & Hausken, Kjell, 2009. "Intelligence and impact contests in systems with redundancy, false targets, and partial protection," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(12), pages 1927-1941.
    12. Kjell Hausken & Jun Zhuang, 2011. "Governments' and Terrorists' Defense and Attack in a T -Period Game," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(1), pages 46-70, March.
    13. 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.
    14. Dan Kovenock & Brian Roberson, 2018. "The Optimal Defense Of Networks Of Targets," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(4), pages 2195-2211, October.
    15. 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.
    16. Zhang, Xiaoxiong & Ye, Yanqing & Tan, Yuejin, 2020. "How to protect a genuine target against an attacker trying to detect false targets," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 553(C).
    17. Dan Kovenock & Brian Roberson, 2015. "The Optimal Defense of Network Connectivity," Working Papers 15-24, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    18. Zhang, Xiaoxiong & Ding, Song & Ge, Bingfeng & Xia, Boyuan & Pedrycz, Witold, 2021. "Resource allocation among multiple targets for a defender-attacker game with false targets consideration," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    19. Hunt, Kyle & Agarwal, Puneet & Zhuang, Jun, 2021. "Technology adoption for airport security: Modeling public disclosure and secrecy in an attacker-defender game," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    20. Chen, Die & Xu, Maochao & Shi, Weidong, 2018. "Defending a cyber system with early warning mechanism," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 224-234.

    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:wut:journl:v:3:y:2014:p:23-44:id:1105. 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: Adam Kasperski (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iopwrpl.html .

    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.