We study a security game over a network played between a @math and @math @math . Every attacker chooses, probabilistically, a node of the network to damage. The defender chooses, probabilistically as well, a connected induced subgraph of the network of @math nodes to scan and clean.Each attacker wishes to maximize the probability of escaping her cleaning by the defender. On the other hand, the goal of the defender is to maximize the expected number of attackers that she catches. This game is a generalization of the model from the seminal paper of "The price of defense" (MFCS'06). We are interested in Nash equilibria (NE) of this game, as well as in characterizing @math - @math networks which allow for the best @math @math @math , termed Price of Defense; this is the ratio of @math over the expected number of attackers that the defender catches in a NE. We provide characterizations of the NEs of this game and defense-optimal networks. This allows us to show that the NEs of the game coincide independently from the coordination or not of the attackers. In addition, we give an algorithm for computing NEs. Our algorithm requires exponential time in the worst case, but it is polynomial-time for @math constantly close to 1 or @math . For the special case of tree-networks, we refine our characterization which allows us to derive a polynomial-time algorithm for deciding whether a tree is defense-optimal and if this is the case it computes a defense-optimal NE. On the other hand, we prove that it is NP-hard to find a best-defense strategy if the tree is not defense-optimal. We complement this negative result with a polynomial-time constant-approximation algorithm that computes solutions that are close to optimal ones for general graphs. Finally, we provide asymptotically (almost) tight bounds for the Price of Defense for any @math .
In another line of work, Kearns and Ortiz @cite_19 study in which a large number of players must make individual decisions regarding security. Each player's may depend on the actions of the entire population (in a complex way). The graph-theoretic game that we consider could be seen as a particular instance of such games with some sort of limited interdependence: the actions of the defender and an attacker are interdependent, while the actions of the attackers are not dependent on each other.
@cite_19
2017809722 2294444471 2765659133 2064032144
Risks faced by information system operators and users are not only determined by their own security posture, but are also heavily affected by the security-related decisions of others. This interdependence between information system operators and users is a fundamental property that shapes the efficiency of security defense solutions. Game theory is the most appropriate method to model the strategic interactions between these participants. In this survey, we summarize game-theoretic interdependence models, characterize the emerging security inefficiencies, and present mechanisms to improve the security decisions of the participants. We focus our attention on games with interdependent defenders and do not discuss two-player attacker-defender games. Our goal is to distill the main insights from the state of the art and to identify the areas that need more attention from the research community. The security game is a basic model for resource allocation in adversarial environments. Here there are two players, a defender and an attacker. The defender wants to allocate her limited resources to defend critical targets and the attacker seeks his most favorable target to attack. In the past decade, there has been a surge of research interest in analyzing and solving security games that are motivated by applications from various domains. Remarkably, these models and their game-theoretic solutions have led to real-world deployments in use by major security agencies like the LAX airport, the US Coast Guard and Federal Air Marshal Service, as well as non-governmental organizations. Among all these research and applications, equilibrium computation serves as a foundation. This paper examines security games from a theoretical perspective and provides a unified view of various security game models. In particular, each security game can be characterized by a set system E which consists of the defender's pure strategies; The defender's best response problem can be viewed as a combinatorial optimization problem over E. Our framework captures most of the basic security game models in the literature, including all the deployed systems; The set system E arising from various domains encodes standard combinatorial problems like bipartite matching, maximum coverage, min-cost flow, packing problems, etc. Our main result shows that equilibrium computation in security games is essentially a combinatorial problem. In particular, we prove that, for any set system @math , the following problems can be reduced to each other in polynomial time: (0) combinatorial optimization over E; (1) computing the minimax equilibrium for zero-sum security games over E; (2) computing the strong Stackelberg equilibrium for security games over E; (3) computing the best or worst (for the defender) Nash equilibrium for security games over E. Therefore, the hardness [polynomial solvability] of any of these problems implies the hardness [polynomial solvability] of all the others. Here, by "games over E" we mean the class of security games with arbitrary payoff structures, but a fixed set E of defender pure strategies. This shows that the complexity of a security game is essentially determined by the set system E. We view drawing these connections as an important conceptual contribution of this paper. We study the problem of allocating limited security countermeasures to protect network data from cyber-attacks, for scenarios modeled by Bayesian attack graphs. We consider multi-stage interactions between a network administrator and cybercriminals, formulated as a security game. This formulation is capable of representing security environments with significant dynamics and uncertainty, and very large strategy spaces. For the game model, we propose parameterized heuristic strategies for both players. Our heuristics exploit the topological structure of the attack graphs and employ different sampling methodologies to overcome the computational complexity in determining players' actions. Given the complexity of the game, we employ a simulation-based methodology, and perform empirical game analysis over an enumerated set of these heuristic strategies. Finally, we conduct experiments based on a variety of game settings to demonstrate the advantages of our heuristics in obtaining effective defense strategies which are robust to the uncertainty of the security environment. There has been a recent surge of interest in the role of information in strategic interactions. Much of this work seeks to understand how the realized equilibrium of a game is influenced by uncertainty in the environment and the information available to players in the game. Lurking beneath this literature is a fundamental, yet largely unexplored, algorithmic question: how should a "market maker" who is privy to additional information, and equipped with a specified objective, inform the players in the game? This is an informational analogue of the mechanism design question, and views the information structure of a game as a mathematical object to be designed, rather than an exogenous variable. We initiate a complexity-theoretic examination of the design of optimal information structures in general Bayesian games, a task often referred to as signaling. We focus on one of the simplest instantiations of the signaling question: Bayesian zero-sum games, and a principal who must choose an information structure maximizing the equilibrium payoff of one of the players. In this setting, we show that optimal signaling is computationally intractable, and in some cases hard to approximate, assuming that it is hard to recover a planted clique from an Erdos-Renyi random graph. This is despite the fact that equilibria in these games are computable in polynomial time, and therefore suggests that the hardness of optimal signaling is a distinct phenomenon from the hardness of equilibrium computation. Necessitated by the non-local nature of information structures, en-route to our results we prove an "amplification lemma" for the planted clique problem which may be of independent interest. Specifically, we show that even if we plant many cliques in an Erdos-Renyi random graph, so much so that most nodes in the graph are in some planted clique, recovering a constant fraction of the planted cliques is no easier than the traditional planted clique problem.