Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
184 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Optimal Scheduling of Agents in ADTrees: Specialised Algorithm and Declarative Models (2305.04616v2)

Published 8 May 2023 in cs.MA

Abstract: Expressing attack-defence trees in a multi-agent setting allows for studying a new aspect of security scenarios, namely how the number of agents and their task assignment impact the performance, e.g. attack time, of strategies executed by opposing coalitions. Optimal scheduling of agents' actions, a non-trivial problem, is thus vital. We discuss associated caveats and propose an algorithm that synthesises such an assignment, targeting minimal attack time and using the minimal number of agents for a given attack-defence tree. We also investigate an alternative approach for the same problem using Rewriting Logic, starting with a simple and elegant declarative model, whose correctness (in terms of schedule's optimality) is self-evident. We then refine this specification, inspired by the design of our specialised algorithm, to obtain an efficient system that can be used as a playground to explore various aspects of attack-defence trees. We compare the two approaches on different benchmarks.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (34)
  1. B. Kordy, S. Mauw, S. Radomirović, and P. Schweitzer, “Foundations of ADTrees,” in Proceedings of FAST 2010.   Springer, 2011, pp. 80–95.
  2. Z. Aslanyan and F. Nielson, “Pareto Efficient Solutions of ADTrees,” in Proceedings of POST 2015.   Springer, 2015, pp. 95–114.
  3. L. Petrucci, M. Knapik, W. Penczek, and T. Sidoruk, “Squeezing State Spaces of ADTrees,” in Proc. of ICECCS 2019.   IEEE, 2019, pp. 71–80.
  4. J. Arias, C. E. Budde, W. Penczek, L. Petrucci, T. Sidoruk, and M. Stoelinga, “Hackers vs. Security: ADTrees as Asynchronous Multi-agent Systems,” in Proc. of ICFEM 2020.   Springer, 2020, pp. 3–19.
  5. J. Meseguer, “Conditional Rewriting Logic as a Unified Model of Concurrency,” Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 96, no. 1.
  6. ——, “Twenty Years of Rewriting Logic,” Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming, vol. 81, no. 7-8, pp. 721–781, 2012.
  7. F. Durán, S. Eker, S. Escobar, N. Martí-Oliet, J. Meseguer, R. Rubio, and C. L. Talcott, “Programming and Symbolic Computation in Maude,” J. Log. Algebraic Methods Program., vol. 110, 2020.
  8. B. Kordy, S. Mauw, S. Radomirović, and P. Schweitzer, “ADTrees,” Journal of Logic and Computation, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 55–87, 2014.
  9. O. Gadyatskaya, R. R. Hansen, K. G. Larsen, A. Legay, M. C. Olesen, and D. B. Poulsen, “Modelling ADTrees Using Timed Automata,” in Proceedings of FORMATS 2016.   Springer, 2016, pp. 35–50.
  10. F. Arnold, D. Guck, R. Kumar, and M. Stoelinga, “Sequential and Parallel Attack Tree Modelling,” in Proceedings of SAFECOMP 2015.   Springer, 2015, pp. 291–299.
  11. M. Gribaudo, M. Iacono, and S. Marrone, “Exploiting Bayesian Networks for the Analysis of Combined Attack Trees,” Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 310, pp. 91–111, 2015.
  12. Z. Aslanyan, F. Nielson, and D. Parker, “Quantitative Verification and Synthesis of Attack-Defence Scenarios,” in Proceedings of CSF 2016.   IEEE, 2016, pp. 105–119.
  13. B. Kordy, L. Piètre-Cambacédès, and P. Schweitzer, “DAG-based Attack and Defense Modeling: Don’t Miss the Forest for the Attack Trees,” Computer Science Review, vol. 13-14, pp. 1–38, 2014.
  14. W. Widel, M. Audinot, B. Fila, and S. Pinchinat, “Beyond 2014: Formal Methods for Attack Tree-based Security Modeling,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 75:1–75:36, 2019.
  15. B. Fila and W. Widel, “Exploiting ADTrees to Find an Optimal Set of Countermeasures,” in Proc. of CSF 2020.   IEEE, 2020, pp. 395–410.
  16. W. Jamroga, W. Penczek, P. Dembinski, and A. Mazurkiewicz, “Towards Partial Order Reductions for Strategic Ability,” in Proceedings of AAMAS ’18.   ACM, 2018, pp. 156–165.
  17. T. L. Adam, K. M. Chandy, and J. R. Dickson, “A Comparison of List Schedules for Parallel Processing Systems,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 17, no. 12, p. 685–690, Dec. 1974.
  18. Y. Kwok and I. Ahmad, “Static Scheduling Algorithms for Allocating Directed Task Graphs to Multiprocessors,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 406–471, 1999.
  19. T. C. Hu, “Parallel Sequencing and Assembly Line Problems,” Operations Research, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 841–848, 1961.
  20. C. H. Papadimitriou and M. Yannakakis, “Scheduling Interval-Ordered Tasks,” SIAM Journal on Computing, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 405–409, 1979.
  21. D. F. Towsley, “Allocating Programs Containing Branches and Loops Within a Multiple Processor System,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 1018–1024, 1986.
  22. H. El-Rewini and H. H. Ali, “Static Scheduling of Conditional Branches in Parallel Programs,” Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 41–54, 1995.
  23. I. Nunes and M. Luck, “Softgoal-based Plan Selection in Model-driven BDI Agents,” in Proc. of AAMAS ’14.   IFAAMAS, 2014, pp. 749–756.
  24. M. Dann, J. Thangarajah, Y. Yao, and B. Logan, “Intention-Aware Multiagent Scheduling,” in Proc. of AAMAS ’20.   IFAAMAS, 2020, pp. 285–293.
  25. B. Kordy, P. Kordy, and Y. van den Boom, “SPTool - Equivalence Checker for SAND Attack Trees,” in Proc. of CRiSIS 2016.   Springer, 2016, pp. 105–113.
  26. H. Eades III, J. Jiang, and A. Bryant, “On Linear Logic, Functional Programming, and Attack Trees,” in Proc. of GraMSec 2018.   Springer, 2018, pp. 71–89.
  27. R. Horne, S. Mauw, and A. Tiu, “Semantics for specialising attack trees based on linear logic,” Fundam. Informaticae, vol. 153, no. 1-2, pp. 57–86, 2017.
  28. J. Arias, W. Penczek, L. Petrucci, and T. Sidoruk, “ADT2AMAS: Managing Agents in Attack-Defence Scenarios,” in Proceedings of AAMAS ’21.   ACM, 2021, pp. 1749–1751.
  29. J. Arias, L. Masko, W. Penczek, L. Petrucci, and T. Sidoruk, “Minimal Schedule with Minimal Number of Agents in Attack-Defence Trees,” in Proceedings of ICECCS 2022.   IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–10.
  30. “ADT2AMAS: Tool for Managing Agents in Attack-Defense Scenarios,” https://depot.lipn.univ-paris13.fr/parties/tools/adt2amas.
  31. “ADT2MAUDE: Tool for Managing Agents in Attack-Defense Scenarios,” https://depot.lipn.univ-paris13.fr/parties/tools/adt2maude.
  32. N. Martí-Oliet, J. Meseguer, and A. Verdejo, “A Rewriting Semantics for Maude Strategies,” in Proc. of WRLA 2008, ser. ENTCS, G. Rosu, Ed., vol. 238, no. 3.   Elsevier, 2008, pp. 227–247.
  33. M. Knapik, É. André, L. Petrucci, W. Jamroga, and W. Penczek, “Timed ATL: Forget Memory, Just Count,” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol. 66, pp. 197–223, 2019.
  34. C. Rocha, J. Meseguer, and C. A. Muñoz, “Rewriting Modulo SMT and Open System Analysis,” J. Log. Algebraic Methods Program., vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 269–297, 2017.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.