Cyber Resilience Action Set Selection Under Cost Constraints

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Conventional techniques fail to provide optimum resilience design information tailored to a target system, neglecting the selection of actions that maximize resilience and minimize influence during cyberattacks.

Innovation Solution

An information processing device and method that utilizes a cyber resilience catalog to evaluate and select an action set that optimizes resilience parameters, such as attack success rate, operation function improvement, and recovery time, while considering system constraints like installation and running costs.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If conventional security action selection techniques are used, then general security measures can be implemented, but they fail to provide optimum resilience design information tailored to specific target systems

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveresilience design information adaptabilityVSAvoidresilience effectiveness
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies local quality by tailoring security actions to specific target systems through system-specific parameter analysis. The resilience evaluation unit assesses each target system's unique characteristics (criticality, vulnerability, exposure) and selects security actions optimized for that specific system rather than applying generic measures, thereby achieving both adaptability and reliability

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements dynamics by continuously evaluating and updating resilience parameters based on changing system conditions and threat landscapes. The system dynamically adjusts security action selection by recalculating resilience indicators when system configuration, threats, or constraints change, ensuring optimal resilience design information remains current and effective

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

2Reliability

If multiple security measures are introduced to improve resilience, then attack success rate decreases and recovery time improves, but installation cost and running cost increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveresilience performanceVSAvoidresource consumption
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSQuantity of substance

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies parameter changes by systematically varying security action parameters (type, number, configuration) and evaluating their impact on resilience indicators versus resource consumption. The selection process identifies optimal parameter combinations that achieve required resilience levels (attack success rate, recovery time) while minimizing installation and running costs through quantitative analysis

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements partial action by selecting only the necessary subset of security measures required to meet specific resilience targets for each target system. Rather than implementing all possible security measures, the system identifies the minimum effective combination that achieves the required level of protection, avoiding unnecessary resource consumption while maintaining adequate resilience

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

3Measurement precision

If comprehensive resilience evaluation is performed for each target system, then optimum security actions can be selected, but the complexity of analysis increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveresilience evaluation accuracyVSAvoidanalysis system complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies segmentation by dividing the comprehensive resilience evaluation into distinct functional modules: parameter acquisition unit, resilience evaluation unit, and security action selection unit. Each module handles specific aspects of the analysis independently, improving measurement precision through specialized processing while reducing overall complexity through modular architecture and clear separation of concerns

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Data Source

PatentEP4404507B1Information processing device, information processing method, and information processing computer program product
Publication Date: 2025.11.26 KK TOSHIBA
  • EP4404507B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP4404507B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP4404507B1 patent drawingFigure 3~4

AI summary

An information processing device includes a first acquisition unit, a calculation unit, and a selection unit. The first acquisition unit acquires resilience requirements for a target system. For each of the action sets including one action or the combination of the actions and being different from each other for the resilience, the calculation unit calculates the resilience indicator of the target system to which an action set is applied. Based on the resilience indicator calculated for each of the action sets, the selection unit selects the action set satisfying the resilience requirements among the action sets, as the resilience design information.