Signal Safeguarding: Multi-Layered Security

• Signal safeguarding is a multidimensional approach combining architectural, cryptographic, physical, and formal verification techniques to protect control and measurement signals.
• It employs robust methods like network segmentation, PKI mutual authentication, and tamper-evident hardware to ensure integrity, confidentiality, and operational safety.
• Adversarial optimization, formal verification, and active jamming are integrated to preempt unauthorized access and maintain reliability in cyber-physical environments.

Signal safeguarding comprises the ensemble of architectural, cryptographic, physical, adversarial, and analytic techniques designed to ensure that critical signals—whether control, measurement, or informative—retain their integrity, confidentiality, authenticity, and operational safety against targeted and untargeted threats. The field encompasses layered defenses (network segmentation, cryptographic protocols, intrusion monitoring), hardware-level tamper-evidence, adversarial dataset protection, formal verification of control logic, physical-layer jamming and filtering, and protocol-driven mechanisms in cyber-physical systems and communications networks.

1. Layered Security Architectures for Safety-Critical Control

Signal safeguarding in cyber-physical infrastructure is exemplified by compartmentalized defense strategies that partition systems into trust domains with controlled conduits. In the Deutsche Bahn railway signalling architecture (Schlehuber et al., 2020), three hierarchical layers—Operational, Interlocking, Field Element Area—are segmented into security zones (IEC 62443 SL2–SL3), linked by encrypted, integrity-protected channels (RaSTA), and physically/logically separated by secure gateway appliances (Security Boxes and Application Layer Gateways). All routing of control and diagnostic signals is regulated so that direct transmission to safety logic elements is never exposed to unfiltered or unauthenticated traffic.

Key building blocks include:

• Network segmentation with redundant, encrypted, integrity-protected links.
• Mutual authentication using PKI, with certificate management in dedicated Security Centers.
• Intrusion monitoring via centralized SIEM aggregating logs, providing real-time detection and correlation.
• Fail-safe logic: safety-critical functions are strictly decoupled from security primitives, and any anomaly (e.g., failed authentication or channel) triggers predefined protective actions (e.g., all signals set to "stop").

Latency, throughput, and performance are preserved within allowable safety budgets (e.g., <2 ms per security box, <5 ms via gateway). Detection latency for directed attacks (impersonation, injection) is maintained under 30 s, with all safety logic homologated independently—ensuring certification cycles remain tractable.

2. Cryptographic and Physical Tamper-Evidence Techniques

Physical and cryptographic methods provide foundational guarantees against unauthorized modification and information leakage at the hardware and data layer. In railway spot transmission systems (Lim et al., 2017), device-level safeguarding leverages truncated MAC tags (~12 bits) and PRF-based scrambler seeds, implemented so as to avoid expansion of standardized telegram lengths. Unique balise keys, derived from operator master keys and individual IDs, make forgery probabilities negligible (e.g., ~2^–12) and prohibit replay or cloning attacks except where physical device redeployment occurs.

At the hardware level, Targeted Tamper-Evident Routing (T-TER) (Trippel et al., 2019) operationalizes layout-centric protection for IC nets by enveloping security-critical paths with dedicated guard wires. Detection of malicious post-fabrication modification employs thresholded capacitance (for jog/move attacks), DC continuity (for deletion), and terahertz time-domain reflectometry (TDR), which is statistically matched to process variation and provides 95% confidence with 14 probe measurements for minimal edit distances (~0.12 µm).

All physical and cryptographic protections are designed for minimal latency, bandwidth, and resource overheads (<0.025 ms per telegram, <1% routing resources), with integration into legacy systems and homologation not requiring recertification of core functional logic.

3. Formal Verification and Logic Safety

Signal safeguarding extends to full formal assurance of control and interlocking logic, where domain-specific formal verification engines automatically translate and check field notations (e.g., SSI-GDL) against inductive invariants, explicit safety predicates, and exhaustive transition checks. The SafeCap tool (Iliasov et al., 2021) synthesizes state-transition systems from raw railway interlocking plans, generating proof obligations over the space of occupancy, route, signal, and point-locking variables.

Key inductive invariants include mutual exclusion of conflicting routes, invariance of signal clear states, and safe movement criteria for points. All counterexamples are rendered directly into engineering diagrams and terminology, enabling practitioners to diagnose (and remediate) violations without knowledge of the formal logic apparatus. Full automation, non-interference with existing workflows, and mapping to notational standards are critical in industrial-scale deployments.

4. Adversarial Signal and Dataset Protection

In event-based ML systems, safeguarding the exploitability of data itself is essential. Recent approaches (Wang et al., 8 Jul 2025) generate unlearnable event streams (UEvs) via bilevel adversarial optimization. Error-minimizing noise δ is computed per sample or class to trick unauthorized models into learning label-shortcut associations instead of genuine spatio-temporal features. For compatibility with asynchronous sparse event data, perturbations are quantized to discrete flips (+0.5/–0.5), leaving original temporal structure recoverable for authorized use.

Algorithmically, UEv generation solves:

• Inner loop: PGD-style optimization of δ to minimize cross-entropy loss for the surrogate model.
• Outer loop: alternates model retraining and noise updates until surrogate accuracy exceeds a threshold.
• Discrete projection and reconstruction yield full event streams that, when removed or robustly encoded, restore normal model performance.

This method ensures near-chance unauthorized accuracy, reversibility for legitimate workflows, and empirical robustness.

5. Active Interference, Jamming, and Receiver Filtering

Active interference-based safeguarding is critical in wireless sensor networks, decentralized systems, and receiver front-ends. Guardian architectures (Wilhelm et al., 2013) inspect wireless traffic at the byte level in real time (FPGA pipeline; ~39 µs), classifying packets and triggering selective jamming (~26 µs) to preempt reception of unauthorized or malicious commands. The technique blocks 99.9% of injected traffic with negligible impact (<0.1%) on legitimate packet loss.

In decentralized wireless networks, full-duplex jamming receivers (Zheng et al., 2016) radiate confidential information and jamming signals simultaneously, with adaptive configuration of antenna vectors (ZF–MRC, null-space projection), optimal deployment density (λ_f), and trade-off analytic models for secrecy outage probability and spatial reuse. Multi-antenna receiver arrays balance connection probability and secrecy guarantees, with throughput-maximizing quasi-concave formulations over deployment parameters.

At the receiver front-end, self-shielded topological receiver protectors (Reisner et al., 2019) utilize charge-conjugation symmetric defect modes in SSH coupled-resonator microwave chains, inductively coupled to saturable-loss diodes. Power-dependent nonlinearity destroys transmission resonance above threshold (~–5 dBm), reflecting and protecting sensitive hardware, with dynamic range, insertion loss, and thermal robustness superior to diode, plasma, or superconducting limiters.

6. Protocol and Control Layer Safeguarding in Networked Systems

Protocol-driven techniques employ automated analysis and structured verification against foundational security properties, even in rapidly evolving and highly complex systems. CellSecInspector for 3GPP networks (Xie et al., 31 Dec 2025) translates English-language specifications to state-condition-action graphs, synthesizes full procedure chains, and checks each against nine core properties (authentication, integrity, confidentiality, privacy, availability, etc.) and all basic adversarial scenarios (drop, modify, reject, replay).

Automated test-case generation enables deployment on real platforms (open5GS, srsRAN), identifying vulnerabilities (e.g., replay, DoS, emergency call failures), and integrating mitigation (integrity protection, ciphering, scheduler updates) prospectively. The framework scales to thousands of spec pages, automatically adapts to new standard releases, and has been empirically validated to discover both known and novel vulnerabilities.

Safety-critical cyber-physical controllers (Mohamed et al., 2023) wrap conventional load-frequency controllers in barrier-function-based quadratic programming filters, enforcing operational safety not via detection but actuation-layer correction. Frequency and ROCOF envelopes are maintained under sustained or oscillatory attack; only minimal deviation from nominal control is applied, with alarm signaling and integration into local control—preserving non-interference and enabling forensic post-processing while preventing unsafe trips.

7. Safeguarding in Measurement and Sensing Applications

Signal safeguarding principles extend to metrology and measurement. Acoustic test signal safeguarding (Kawahara et al., 2021) embeds deterministic noise-like components in audio, preventing weak-spectrum artifacts from undermining impulse response estimation. DFT magnitude flooring ensures strong excitation at all frequencies, stable deconvolution, and simultaneous characterization of LTI, random, and signal-dependent nonlinear paths via multi-trial and multi-variant averaging.

Practical process entails segment-level DFT manipulation, time-domain reconstruction, repeated measurement, and separation of contributions via variance and expectation calculation. All procedures are designed to preserve perceptual content, avoid annoyance, and guarantee robust system identification even with arbitrary source material (e.g., music).

---

Signal safeguarding thus occupies a multidimensional landscape, integrating network architecture, routing, cryptography, formal logic, adversarial learning, jamming, protocol analysis, control theory, and measurement science. Solutions are characterized by stratified risk modeling, precise engineering constraints, and rigorous assurance of integrity, authenticity, and operational safety across diverse threat models and application domains (Schlehuber et al., 2020, Lim et al., 2017, Iliasov et al., 2021, Trippel et al., 2019, Wang et al., 8 Jul 2025, Xie et al., 31 Dec 2025, Wilhelm et al., 2013, Zheng et al., 2016, Reisner et al., 2019, Mohamed et al., 2023, Beuster et al., 2024).