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 .
Inspired by events ranging from 9 11 to the collapse of the accounting firm Arthur Andersen, economists Kunreuther and Heal [5] recently introduced an interesting game-theoretic model for problems of interdependent security (IDS), in which a large number of players must make individual investment decisions related to security — whether physical, financial, medical, or some other type — but in which the ultimate safety of each participant may depend in a complex way on the actions of the entire population. A simple example is the choice of whether to install a fire sprinkler system in an individual condominium in a large building. While such a system might greatly reduce the chances of the owner’s property being destroyed by a fire originating within their own unit, it might do little or nothing to reduce the chances of damage caused by fires originating in other units (since sprinklers can usually only douse small fires early). If “enough” other unit owners have not made the investment in sprinklers, it may be not cost-effective for any individual to do so.