Securing the Grid: Averting the Unseen Threats in Our Cyber-physical Energy Infrastructure

Discover How Identity, Data Provenance, and API Endpoint Security, Protect Our Energy Future

Author: Dr. Carsten Stöcker (Spherity GmbH). The following article was created as part of the “idFlex Netz” project.

Abstract: Our energy transmission and distribution grids are the backbone of modern society, and their protection from malicious actors is of paramount importance. This article dives into the various aspects of securing the data and controlling signal processing in the energy grid, examining the significance of provenance in grid assets, grid asset algorithms, and the data they generate.

We investigate the potential risks and vulnerabilities when malicious actors compromise data processing value chains and control loops by fabricating data or manipulating algorithms, citing real-world examples of cyber-security incidents in the energy grid.

The article emphasizes the crucial role of establishing a strong identity for grid assets and ensuring IoT data provenance to enhance grid security. Additionally, we discuss the significance of machine learning data label provenance for effectively managing and mitigating risks associated with compromised algorithms and data processing pipelines.

Further, the article explains the vital role of API endpoint security in preventing unauthorized access to critical systems and explores recent trends in API endpoint attacks. The article also explains how API endpoint security can be established using identity and authorization credentials for the authentication and authorization of API requests.

We discuss the concept of algorithm security, highlighting the importance of provenance and credentials throughout an ML or AI algorithm’s life cycle and the data processing chain. Based on these concepts we introduce the “trust algorithms” for risk scoring of machine learning data.

Finally, we give practical examples of the use of identity, provenance, and API endpoint security for real-world use cases involving grid assets in the distribution grid. By understanding and implementing the security measures outlined in this article, we can significantly enhance the resilience and stability of our energy grid infrastructure.

Photo by Felipe Vieira on Unsplash

Part 1: Introduction to Grid Assets, Algorithms, and Flexibilities

The energy sector is increasingly relying on distributed grid assets, such as solar panels, heat pumps, wall boxes connected to electric vehicle (EV) batteries, and other flexible devices within the distribution grid. These grid assets are crucial for maintaining a stable and efficient energy system, especially with the growing share of renewable energy sources that introduce volatility to the grid.

IoT data generated by grid assets plays a pivotal role in grid forecasting, predictive maintenance, and asset utilization optimization. Ensuring the provenance, authenticity, and integrity of these assets and their IoT data is critical to prevent potential failures, grid instability, and financial losses. In this article, we will discuss the importance of provenance for grid assets and algorithms, and explore how identity, verifiable credentials, and data provenance chains can help secure the cyber-physical value chain.

Use Case Scenarios for Grid Asset Algorithms:

1. Individual Grid Asset Algorithms: These algorithms are designed to optimize grid forecasting, predictive maintenance, and asset utilization for individual grid assets. By analyzing the IoT data from each asset, these algorithms can make predictions and adjustments to ensure optimal performance and efficiency.
2. Grid Asset Aggregation and Optimization: This approach involves aggregating individual grid assets or flexibilities into a virtual grid flexibility. This collective resource can then be utilized to support the stabilization of the energy grid, especially in situations where a high share of renewables adds volatility.
3. Distribution Grid Optimization Algorithm: These algorithms are integrated into a grid operator’s Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to optimize the entire distribution grid. By considering the performance and interactions of all grid assets, these algorithms can help maintain grid stability and efficiency.

Definition: “Flexibility” in the grid refers to the ability of energy resources, such as demand-side response assets, distributed energy resources, and energy storage systems, to adjust their energy consumption or production in response to grid control signals. This capability allows these resources to either increase or decrease energy consumption (e.g., through demand-side response management using batteries, heat pumps or cooling systems) or even feed energy back into the grid (e.g., through bi-directional EV charging or solar panels). Grid control systems can utilize these flexibilities to compensate for demand/supply fluctuations and maintain grid stability. A “qualification profile” describes the typical response of a flexibility asset to a control signal, outlining its capabilities and performance characteristics in the context of grid management operations.

The Importance of Provenance in Grid Assets and Algorithms

Securing the provenance of physical grid assets, their qualification profiles, and the IoT data they produce is crucial for maintaining the reliability of grid management systems. Malicious actors injecting fake data or manipulating algorithms can lead to safety issues, grid instability, financial losses, or even brownouts in the distribution grid.

To ensure the security and efficiency of grid management systems, it is vital to address the following aspects:

1. Identity, authenticity, and provenance of the grid assets: Verifying the source and legitimacy of grid assets helps maintain the integrity of the overall system.
2. Authenticity, integrity, and provenance of the asset IoT data: Ensuring that the data generated by grid assets is accurate, tamper-proof, and traceable is crucial for reliable grid management and optimization.
3. Authenticity, integrity, and provenance of the algorithms: Verifying the source, quality, and trustworthiness of the algorithms used in grid management helps prevent potential failures and malicious manipulation.

Addressing these challenges can significantly enhance the security of the cyber-physical value chain for grid assets and their data processing pipelines.

Part 2: Risks, Vulnerabilities, and Real-World Examples of Cyber-security Incidents in the Energy Grid

Cyber attacks targeting the data processing value chain in energy grid management systems pose significant risks and vulnerabilities. Malicious actors could inject fake data or manipulate algorithms, leading to incorrect operation, safety concerns, grid instability, financial losses, or even brownouts.

Real-world Examples:

1. Dragonfly Campaign (2011–2014): The Dragonfly group targeted energy grid infrastructure in the United States and Europe, using malware to infect the industrial control systems (ICS) of energy companies. Although the primary goal was espionage, the attackers demonstrated their ability to manipulate grid control systems and potentially cause physical damage. [1]
2. Ukrainian Power Grid Attack (2015): In December 2015, hackers successfully infiltrated Ukraine’s power grid, causing a blackout that affected hundreds of thousands of residents. The attackers used spear-phishing emails to gain access to the utility company’s network and manipulated the data and control systems to disrupt power distribution. [2]
3. CrashOverride/Industroyer Attack (2016): In December 2016, the CrashOverride or Industroyer malware was used to target the Ukrainian power grid, causing a temporary blackout in the capital city of Kyiv. The attack was designed to disrupt the grid’s protection systems, switchgear, and data communication channels. The malware demonstrated the ability to interact directly with industrial control systems and hardware, such as circuit breakers, posing a significant threat to the energy infrastructure. The incident highlighted the need for better API endpoint security measures to protect the energy grid from sophisticated attacks targeting its critical components. [3]

These incidents highlight the importance of robust cyber-security measures to protect the energy grid. Identity and data provenance play critical roles in preventing such attacks and ensuring the integrity of the grid management systems:

Identity: Establishing and verifying the identities of devices, users, algorithms, and systems involved in grid management helps prevent unauthorized access. Secure authentication and authorization methods ensure that only legitimate actors can access or modify data and algorithms, reducing the risk of data manipulation or injection.

Data Provenance: Ensuring data provenance means having a clear and secure record of the origin, ownership, and history of data generated by grid assets. Data provenance can help stakeholders identify tampering, detect anomalies, and validate the integrity of data. By tracing data lineage and maintaining its integrity, stakeholders can prevent the injection of fake data and respond more effectively to potential attacks.

API Endpoint Security: Securing the API endpoints is a crucial aspect of protecting the energy grid. API endpoints are the gateways through which data and commands are exchanged between different components of the grid management systems. Ensuring robust API endpoint security helps prevent unauthorized access, data leaks, and manipulation attempts. By employing strong authentication and authorization methods, such as identity and authorization credentials, stakeholders can validate the legitimacy of API requests and allow only authorized access to the system.

In conclusion, the energy grid is a critical infrastructure that requires robust cyber-security measures to protect against potential threats. Identity and data provenance are essential components of a comprehensive security strategy that safeguards the grid from malicious actors, ensuring the stability and reliability of the energy supply for millions of people. By learning from real-world examples and implementing best practices, stakeholders can minimize the risk of cyber attacks and maintain a secure and resilient energy grid.

Part 3: Identity, API Endpoint Security, Algorithm and Data Provenance Chains in the Distribution Grid

In this section, we will explore how identity, verifiable credentials, authorization, algorithm and data provenance chains can enhance the security and efficiency of grid asset management systems.

1. Identity and Verifiable Credentials for Grid Assets:

Assigning a unique identity to each grid asset allows for more effective tracking and management. Verifiable credentials can be issued to each asset to prove its authenticity, origin, and qualification profile. These credentials can be stored and exchanged via the use of identity wallets.

2. API Endpoint Security — Authorization and Access Control:

Defining clear authorization policies for accessing IoT data and grid algorithms helps prevent unauthorized access and manipulation. Implementing robust access control mechanisms, such as multi-factor authentication or role-based access control, can ensure that only authorized users and devices can access and modify critical data and algorithms.

3. Algorithm Provenance:

Ensuring the provenance and integrity of grid asset algorithms is essential for preventing malicious manipulation. Techniques such as code signing, secure software development practices, training data signing, signed algorithm validation reports and regular audits can help maintain the authenticity and trustworthiness of the algorithms.

4. Data Provenance Chains for IoT Data:

Data provenance chains enable traceability and accountability for the IoT data generated by grid assets. By creating a secure, verifiable record of data lineage, any human or system actor can confirm the source and history of the data. This helps maintain data integrity and prevents manipulation or injection of fake data. Data will be signed when they are generated and processes. Avery algorithm that is processing data signs the output and includes a link to input data or an input data set.

Implementing these measures in grid asset management systems can significantly enhance the security and reliability of the cyber-physical value chain. By using identity, verifiable credentials, authorization, and data provenance chains, stakeholders can build trust in the grid assets, IoT data, and algorithms used to optimize and maintain the energy grid.

Part 4.1 Identity and Verifiable Credentials for Grid Assets

Digital identity refers to the unique representation of an entity, such as a person, organization, or device, in the digital world. In the context of grid assets, wallets play a crucial role in managing digital identities. A wallet is a digital tool that securely manages private keys, signs data in the form of W3C verifiable credentials, and stores and exchanges these credentials between entities. Wallets also verify credentials and provenance chains, ensuring the authenticity and integrity of data. By facilitating the secure management and exchange of digital identities and credentials, wallets contribute significantly to the overall security and reliability of grid management systems.

1. Wallets for Organizations and Their Departments: Organizations, as legal entities, and their individual departments can also utilize digital wallets to manage their unique identities and associated credentials. These wallets can securely store, sign, and exchange verifiable credentials, representing the organization’s authority, roles, and responsibilities. By using wallets, organizations can establish trust and ensure the authenticity of their interactions with other entities in the grid ecosystem. Department-specific wallets can further streamline access control and authorization, making sure that only authorized personnel or devices within the department can perform specific actions or access sensitive data.
2. Identity Wallets for IoT Grid Assets: An identity wallet for IoT grid assets utilizes hardware-enabled secure key management to store signing keys. These keys are used to sign IoT data generated by the assets, ensuring the data’s authenticity and integrity. The identity wallet helps maintain a secure record of the asset’s unique identity and associated data.
3. Cloud Wallets Representing IoT Grid Assets: Cloud wallets act as digital representations of IoT grid assets, storing data with provenance proofs to verify that the data was generated by the respective asset. Additionally, cloud wallets store asset master data in the form of verifiable credentials. These credentials can be created by the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) and linked to the IoT data, allowing data consumers to verify the authenticity of both the data and the asset itself. The access to the grid IoT devices is often constrained regarding connectivity. In addition, there are challenges regarding security and SW configuration updates. Therefore it is recommended that algorithms do not interact with a device directly, but that they interact with a representation of the asset in the cloud.
4. Algorithm Wallets with Provenance Credentials: Algorithms can also have wallets storing credentials about their provenance. These credentials provide information about the algorithm’s origin, version, and validation, ensuring transparency and trustworthiness in the algorithm’s deployment and performance.
5. Data Consumer Wallets for Verification and Risk Assessment: Wallets for data consumers, such as SCADA systems and grid optimization systems, can be used to verify provenance and authorization chains. Ideally, these systems should include a risk scoring module to assess the risk score of raw IoT data or IoT data processed by a given algorithm. By setting a minimum threshold risk score, the system can filter out less trustworthy data or label it accordingly before further processing, ensuring the reliability and security of grid management operations.
6. Wallets for SCADA Systems Sending Authorized Control Data: SCADA systems, which manage grid assets and send control data to flexibilities, can benefit from wallets to establish and maintain authorization for their control data. By using a wallet to send an authorization credential along with the control data, the IoT device receiving the control command can verify its authenticity before triggering a response. This ensures that only authorized control data is acted upon, increasing the overall security and reliability of grid operations.

Part 4.2: API Endpoint Security

API (Application Programming Interface) endpoint security is crucial in today’s interconnected digital landscape. APIs serve as the communication channels between software applications, allowing them to exchange data and perform various functions. With the increasing reliance on APIs, they have become attractive targets for cyber criminals who seek to exploit vulnerabilities and gain unauthorized access to sensitive information.

Recent trends in API endpoint attacks include DDoS attacks, data breaches, and injection attacks. A notorious example is the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018, where a third-party app exploited Facebook’s API to harvest personal data from millions of users [4]. According to a report by Salt Security, API attacks have increased by 211% year-over-year in 2021, highlighting the growing concern for API endpoint security [5].

Establishing API endpoint security can be achieved through the use of identity and authorization credentials for the authentication and authorization of API requests to a system. This approach ensures that only authorized users can access specific API endpoints and perform actions based on their permissions.

It is important to understand the access control module of a system shall log the authorization events to create an audit trail that access was only granted authorized entities. This feature is an important compliance feature. A real-world example is Spherity’s CARO solution for Authorized Trading Partner compliance in the US Pharma Supply Chain.

The concepts of Software-Defined Perimeter (SDP) and Identity Governance in NIST Zero Trust Architecture (ZTA) recommendations are directly connected to API endpoint security [6]. SDP is a security framework that aims to provide secure access to network resources by verifying user identities and authorizations. Identity Governance involves

• implementing a trust framework,
• managing and controlling digital identities,
• ensuring that access to resources is granted only to authorized human or system users based on their authorization status credentials for Attribute Based Access Control (ABAC).

By following these recommendations, organizations can establish a robust API endpoint security strategy that aligns with Zero Trust principles, minimizing the risk of unauthorized access and data breaches.

Part 4.3: Algorithm Provenance

The provenance of an algorithm is crucial in establishing trust, integrity, and security throughout its lifecycle. This encompasses several key aspects:

1. Creator of the Algorithm and the algorithm version: Knowing the developer and the version of the algorithm helps in ensuring its authenticity and credibility. Algorithms should be created by reputable sources and continuously updated to maintain effectiveness and security.
2. Benchmarking and Validation of the Algorithms: Rigorous testing and evaluation are necessary to verify the algorithm’s performance, accuracy, and reliability. Independent auditing, benchmarking, or validation entities can assess the algorithm and provide valuable feedback to ensure it meets the required standards.
3. Deployment of the Algorithms: Secure deployment of the algorithms is vital in safeguarding the entire process. It includes best practices for configuring, hosting, and managing the algorithm in a production environment, while maintaining data privacy and security.
4. Secure Operations of the Algorithm: During its operation, the algorithm should be protected from unauthorized access and tampering. This involves continuous monitoring, access control, and implementing security measures to mitigate potential threats.

To ensure algorithm security, a machine learning data label consumer should have access to credentials about the provenance of the algorithm and its lifecycle. These credentials provide valuable information about the algorithm’s trustworthiness, enabling the consumer to make informed decisions and perform accurate risk scoring of machine learning labels. By adhering to the concept of algorithm security, organizations can bolster the overall safety and reliability of their data-driven systems.

Part 4.4: Provenance and Authorization Chains: The Cornerstones of Trust in the Cyber-Physical Value Chain

As our digital landscape continues to evolve, the need for trustworthy and secure data processing systems is important. In this chapter, we will explore the concepts of provenance and authorization chains, which serve as the foundations of trust in the cyber-physical value chain. Provenance chains ensure the integrity and traceability of data as it flows through data processing pipelines, while authorization chains ensure that access to resources and data is granted only to authorized entities. By understanding and implementing these critical concepts, organizations can enhance the security and reliability of their systems, paving the way for more informed decision-making and greater confidence in the digital world [7].

1. Data provenance in data processing chains: Verifiable data chains for data provenance ensure that the origin, ownership, and history of data items are clear and secure. This allows stakeholders to trace the source and history of the data, ensuring its integrity and preventing manipulation or injection of fake data. For example, a provenance chain may involve an IoT asset, an algorithm, and an output label. The IoT asset generates data, which is then processed by the algorithm to create the output label. By establishing a verifiable data chain, the provenance of each data item can be validated, ensuring the trustworthiness of the entire data processing chain.
2. Authorization Chains: Verifiable data chains for authorization ensure that access to resources and data is granted only to authorized entities. Authorization chains can involve multiple credentials, such as an enterprise identity credential from a trust service provider, an authorization credential of a department, and an authorization credential of an employee or machine acting on behalf of the department. These credentials can be used to verify the legitimacy of requests made to API endpoints, ensuring that access is granted only to authorized parties.

Authorization Chains

For instance, when a request is made to an API endpoint, the authorization credentials can be checked to ensure that the requesting party has the appropriate permissions. Each credential might have an authorization chain that is connected via linked authorization credentials up to a well-known ‘root of trust’ entity or a well-known ‘trust list’.

Multiple authorization credentials can be combined so that an access control module can verify the authenticity of a requester and multiple authorization requirements. Example:

• authorization of a machine
• license to operate credentials of the entity owning the machine
• TÜV credential of the entity owning the machine
• TÜV credential of the machine itself
• identity credential of the entity owning the machine issued by a trust service provider (authentication)

Provenance Chains

Individual process events in a supply chain or a data processing chain for creating a machine label as an algorithmic output can be chained together in the form of linked verifiable credentials (aka data chain) so that the provenance of the process events can be evaluated by a third party verifier.

Provenance chains require orthogonal authorization chains for the entities involved in the data processing chain. For example, a machine may have a Proof of Origin Credential (a.k.a. machine birth certificate) issued by the machine OEM. The shop floor system of the OEM that created the Proof of Origin may have an authorization credential indicating that it is an authorized system of the OEM, linked to an OEM identity credential issued by a trust service provider.

The same logic applies to Provenance Credentials issued for an algorithm by its creator. By ensuring the authenticity and integrity of both provenance and authorization chains, the trustworthiness of the entire cyber-physical value chain can be maintained.

Part 4.5 Authorization Chains and Zero Trust Architecture (ZTA)

In the context of our discussion on securing the energy grid and its assets, Zero Trust Architecture (ZTA) offers a comprehensive and robust approach to ensure the highest level of security. ZTA is a cyber-security framework based on the principle of “never trust, always verify,” meaning that no user, device, or system is inherently trusted within the network. The architecture focuses on enforcing strict access control policies, minimizing the attack surface, and continuously monitoring and verifying all entities within the ecosystem [6].

ZTA leverages Enhanced Identity Governance for cross-enterprise ecosystems to ensure that only authorized users, devices, and applications can access sensitive resources. As a prerequisite, an industry domain must agree on developing an identity ecosystem and agree on a trust model including processes to ensure conformance with the trust model across processes and technology implementations involved in the ecosystem.

Additionally, ZTA utilizes Network Infrastructure and Software Defined Perimeters (SDP) to create dynamic, context-aware access controls based on user and device attributes, resulting in more secure and granular control of the network.

Access control policies are a set of rules and conditions that determine which entities are granted access to specific resources or services within a system. These policies are crucial for securing sensitive data and systems by restricting access to only those with legitimate needs.

In a ZTA, the Policy Enforcement Point (PEP) is responsible for intercepting access requests and enforcing access control policies. At the same time, the Policy Decision Point (PDP) evaluates these requests against the defined policies and determines whether to grant or deny access. A policy engine (PE) consists of a PEP and a PDP.

Verifiable credentials and authorization chains can be used to implement policy decision instruments in an access control module by providing a secure and tamper-proof means to verify the identity, attributes, and authorization of users, devices, or systems. This information can then be used to make informed decisions about granting access based on the established policies.

Attribute-Based Access Control (ABAC) is an advanced access control model that uses verifiable credentials to evaluate access requests based on a wide range of attributes, such as user roles, device characteristics, and contextual information. By incorporating ABAC into a ZTA, organizations can achieve a higher level of security and flexibility in managing access to their critical resources and infrastructure.

Part 5: Trust Algorithms for Risk Scoring of ML Data and its Importance in Securing the Grid

In this paragraph, we discuss Trust Algorithms for Risk Scoring for two use cases: a) Authorisation and b) ML Data Provenance

a) Trust Algorithms for Risk Scoring for Authorisation

For an enterprise with a ZTA deployment, the policy engine (PE) can be thought of as the brain and the PE’s trust algorithm as its primary thought process. The trust algorithm (TA) is the process used by the policy engine to ultimately grant or deny access to a resource.

The policy engine takes input from multiple sources: the policy database with observable information about subjects, subject attributes in the form of authorization credentials and role credentials, historical subject behavior patterns, threat intelligence sources, and other metadata sources. The weight of importance for each data source may be a proprietary algorithm, may be configured by the enterprise, or may be defined by conformance criteria of a trust model.

Trust Algorithms (TA) for risk scoring of machine learning (ML) data is a critical process that helps assess the trustworthiness of ML output labels, ensuring the security and stability of grid systems.

There are different ways to implement a TA. Different implementers may wish to weigh the above factors differently according to the factors’ perceived importance. There are two other major characteristics that can be used to differentiate TAs.

1. The first is how the factors are evaluated, whether as “binary decisions” or weighted parts of a whole “score” or confidence level (aka risk scoring).
2. The second is how requests are evaluated in relation to other requests by the same subject, application/service, or device.

Ad 1.) Criteria- versus score-based:

• A criteria-based TA assumes a set of qualified attributes that must be met before access is granted to a resource or an action (e.g., read/write) is allowed. These criteria are configured by the enterprise and should be independently configured for every resource. Access is granted or an action applied to a resource only if all the criteria are met.
• A score-based TA computes a confidence level based on values for every data source and enterprise-configured weights. If the score is greater than the configured threshold value for the resource, access is granted, or the action is performed.
• Otherwise, the request is denied, or access privileges are reduced (e.g., read access is granted but not write access for a file).
• In the real world, there are always risks so criteria, factors, or attributes can never be binary. Therefore binary decisions are either not possible or can be understood as an “approximation model” of a scoring-based solution, that makes assumptions that some risks can be neglected and therefore the respective weighted scores of the factors are assumed to be “1" or “0”.

Developing a set of criteria or weights/threshold values for each resource requires planning and testing. Therefore it is often said that ZTA applied the concept of ‘Threshold Security’.

Ad 2.) Singular versus contextual:

• A singular TA treats each request individually and does not take the subject history into consideration when making its evaluation. This can allow faster evaluations, but there is a risk that an attack can go undetected if it stays within a subject’s allowed role.
• A contextual TA takes the subject or network agent’s recent history into consideration when evaluating access requests. This means the PE must maintain some state information on all subjects and applications but may be more likely to detect an attacker using subverted credentials to access information in a pattern that is atypical of what the PE sees for the given subject. This also means that the PE must be informed of user behavior by the PA (and PEPs) that subjects interact with when communicating.
• Analysis of subject behavior can be used to provide a model of acceptable use, and deviations from this behavior could trigger additional authentication checks or resource request denials.
• It shall be understood that in credential-based models the “analysis of subject behavior” is often done by a third party, the authorized credential issuer. For instance, in the case of a ‘license to operate’ credentials the authorized issued may monitor the behavior of the company or respective government registries. In case the issuer or the government observes the misbehavior of an enterprise the license is canceled and the credential revoked. When a TA validates an authorization credential, it checks the revocation status and will get direct information about the behavioral issues of the enterprise.

Ideally, a ZTA trust algorithm should be contextual, but this may not always be possible with the infrastructure components available to the enterprise. A contextual TA can mitigate threats where an attacker stays close to a “normal” set of access requests for a compromised subject account or insider attack. It is important to balance security, usability, and cost-effectiveness when defining and implementing trust algorithms.

b) Trust Algorithms for Risk Scoring for ML Data Provenance

By evaluating the provenance chains of linked assertions in the form of verifiable credentials, a data provenance risk-scoring algorithm can determine the credibility of the input data fed into the ML algorithm and its relation to the identity of the grid assets. This evaluation enables the creation of an asset risk score, factoring in the origin and authenticity of a grid asset that created input IoT data for an ML algorithm.

The output ML label is generated with a signature from the algorithm, which is then linked to the input IoT data signed with the signature of the grid asset. Linking these credentials creates a verifiable data chain, providing insight into the ML output data’s provenance [7].

Moreover, the risk scoring algorithm retrieves provenance data about the ML algorithm itself, calculating an algorithm risk score. By considering the verifiable data chain, including the provenance of the IoT asset, the IoT input data, and the ML algorithm, the risk scoring algorithm calculates an overall risk score for the ML output data label.

This risk score is crucial for machine consumers of the ML label, such as SCADA systems and grid planning systems, as it enables them to assess the trustworthiness of the ML label before using it. By identifying potentially fabricated ML labels that could pose vulnerabilities to the system, risk scoring effectively helps secure the grid and maintain its reliability.

Part 6: Practical Examples of Security Measures in Grid Asset Management Systems

In this final section, we will provide practical examples of how identity, verifiable credentials, authorization, and data provenance chains can be integrated into grid asset management systems to improve security and reliability for non-technical readers.

Example 1: Verifiable Credentials for Solar Assets

Solar assets, such as solar panels, are a crucial grid component. By assigning a unique identity and issuing verifiable credentials, it becomes possible to confirm the authenticity, device and IoT data origin, and qualification profile of each solar panel.

Example 2: Access Control for IoT Data

Consider a heat pump that generates IoT data about its performance and energy consumption. Implementing access control mechanisms, based on authorization credentials, ensures that only authorized users or devices can access this sensitive data or send control data to the heat pump. This prevents unauthorized access and potential manipulation of the IoT data, which could negatively impact grid performance.

Example 3: Data Provenance Chains for EV Battery Data

Electric vehicle (EV) batteries are often connected to the grid and can provide valuable flexibility. To ensure the reliability of the IoT data generated by these batteries, a data provenance chain can be created. This secure record of data lineage enables stakeholders to trace the source and history of the data, ensuring its integrity and preventing manipulation or injection of fake data.

Example 4: Algorithm Provenance in SCADA Systems

Distribution grid operators utilize SCADA systems to optimize the grid. Ensuring the provenance and integrity of the algorithms used in these systems is essential. By employing code signing, secure software development practices, and regular audits, grid operators can maintain the authenticity and trustworthiness of these critical algorithms.

Example 5: Predictive Maintenance and Optimization for Heat Pumps

Heat pumps play an essential role in managing energy consumption in modern buildings. By using IoT data and machine learning algorithms, it is possible to develop predictive maintenance and optimization strategies for heat pumps. Ensuring the provenance of the IoT data and algorithms used in this process is crucial. By implementing identity and data provenance mechanisms, stakeholders can validate the authenticity and integrity of the IoT data and algorithms, leading to more reliable and efficient heat pump management.

Example 6: Authorization Credentials for Accessing API Endpoints and Algorithms in a Zero Trust Architecture

In a grid management system that follows the Zero Trust Architecture, it is crucial to implement strong authentication and authorization mechanisms for accessing API endpoints and algorithms. By using authorization credentials, the system can verify the legitimacy of the requestor and determine the appropriate level of access. This approach helps protect sensitive data and functions from unauthorized access and manipulation, reducing the risk of cyber-attacks and ensuring the overall security and stability of the energy grid. For example, a grid operator may require a specific authorization credential to access an API endpoint responsible for monitoring the performance of a solar farm. This ensures that only authorized personnel can view and interact with this critical data, maintaining the integrity and reliability of the grid management system.

Example 7: Virtual Flexibility Aggregation for Grid Stability

Virtual flexibility aggregation involves combining the capabilities of various grid assets, such as solar panels, heat pumps, and electric vehicle batteries, to create a virtual grid flexibility resource that can be used to support grid stability. By doing so, grid operators can better manage fluctuations in energy supply and demand, particularly when dealing with the volatility introduced by renewable energy sources. In this context, it is essential to ensure the provenance and authenticity of the IoT data generated by these individual grid assets. When the virtual flexibility aggregator is then sending a control signal to a given IoT asset, the IoT asset can be configured to require authorization credentials from the virtual flexibility aggregator to protect its own API endpoint. For example, a virtual power plant (VPP) may aggregate the flexibility of multiple residential solar and battery systems to provide ancillary services to the grid. Ensuring the provenance and authenticity of the IoT data from these assets and securing the API endpoints of the aggregator and the asset itself delivers more secure and reliant services, maintaining grid stability and preventing potential disruptions [8].

Conclusion

In conclusion, the application of identity, verifiable credentials, and data provenance and authorization chains in grid asset management systems can significantly enhance the security, reliability, and trustworthiness of the cyber-physical value chain. By understanding and implementing these measures, stakeholders can ensure the stability of the energy grid and protect against potential threats, such as manipulation by malicious actors, leading to improved safety and reduced financial losses.

In conclusion, the security and stability of energy grids are of vital importance in the age of increasing digitalization and interconnectedness. Ensuring the integrity and trustworthiness of data, algorithms, and systems is essential in preventing malicious actors from exploiting vulnerabilities within the grid. This comprehensive article has discussed the critical aspects of securing energy grids, including the importance of identity, data provenance, API endpoint security, provenance and authorization chains, and the role of verifiable credentials in grid asset management.

We have delved into practical examples that demonstrate the implementation of identity, verifiable credentials, authorization, and data provenance chains in grid asset management systems. Furthermore, we have explored the significance of digital identity and wallets in managing the unique identities and associated credentials of various entities, such as IoT devices, algorithms, organizations, and SCADA systems.

Risk scoring of ML data labels and incorporating risk assessment modules in data-consuming systems, such as SCADA and grid optimization systems, ensure the reliability and security of grid management operations. By applying these advanced security measures and embracing concepts such as Zero Trust Architecture, the energy grid can be better protected against potential cyber threats, ensuring a more resilient and reliable energy infrastructure for the future.

The solution proposed in this article is a trust framework-based ecosystem solution that needs to be adopted by a majority of the actors of a given cyber-physical supply chain. There are multiple ecosystems such as Gaia-X, idFlex, and energy data eXchange (edX) that are starting to adopt the credentialing solution architecture which we laid out in this article.

Reach out to learn more about Security, Identity, Data Provenance, API Endpoint Security, and Ecosystem Adoption Strategies.

About Spherity

Spherity is a German decentralized digital identity software provider, bringing secure identities to enterprises, machines, products, data, and even algorithms. Spherity provides the enabling technology to digitalize and automate compliance processes in highly-regulated technical sectors. Spherity’s products empower cyber security, efficiency, and data interoperability among digital value chains. Spherity is certified according to the information security standard ISO 27001.

Stay sphered by joining Spherity’s Newsletter list and following us on LinkedIn. For press relations, contact communication@spherity.com.

References

[1] Dragonfly Campaign (2011–2014):

• Symantec Security Response. (2014). Dragonfly: Cyberespionage Attacks Against Energy Suppliers. Symantec Corporation. https://www.symantec.com/content/dam/symantec/docs/security-center/white-papers/dragonfly-energy-sector-cyber-espionage-14-en.pdf

[2] Ukrainian Power Grid Attack (2015):

• Lee, R. M., Assante, M. J., & Conway, T. (2016). Analysis of the Cyber Attack on the Ukrainian Power Grid. SANS Industrial Control Systems. https://ics.sans.org/media/E-ISAC_SANS_Ukraine_DUC_5.pdf

[3] CrashOverride/Industroyer Attack (2016):

• Cherepanov, A. (2017). Win32/Industroyer: A New ICS Attack Framework. ESET. https://www.welivesecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Win32_Industroyer.pdf

[4] Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018:

• Cadwalladr, C., & Graham-Harrison, E. (2018). Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election

[5] Report by Salt Security, API attacks have increased by 211% year-over-year in 2021:

• Salt Security. (2021). Salt Security State of API Security Report, Q3 2021. https://salt.security/resources/state-of-api-security-report/

[6] Zero Trust Architecture

• National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2020). NIST Special Publication 800–207: Zero Trust Architecture. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-207.pdf

[7] Data Processing and Provenance Chains

• Conway, S., Hughes, A., Ma, M., Poole, J., Riedel, M., Smith, S. M., & Stöcker, C. (2019). A DID for Everything: Attribution, Verification, and Provenance for Entities and Data Items. In Proceedings of Rebooting the Web of Trust VII. https://nbviewer.org/github/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot7-toronto/blob/master/final-documents/A_DID_for_everything.pdf