Active and Passive Defense Strategies of Cyber-Physical Power System against Cyber Attacks Considering Node Vulnerability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The author provides a creative defense method of CPPS which combine the active and passive defense strategies. the detail process of this new defense method and simulation results are discussed in the paper.

in the 4.1.2, the author proof that the creative method can prevent random attack, high degree attack, high betweenness attack and high CVI attack. i expect that the new method can prevent more common attacks such DDOS.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1- This article tries to propose an Active and Passive Defense Strategies of Cyber-Physical Power System Against Cyber Attacks Considering Node Vulnerability. The proposed idea and model are interesting and the results are good. But the paper needs a revision for example: to explain the main contribution clearly.

2-As mentioned, the main contribution of this work is dubious. Advantage(s) of this work should be explained in detail rather than the current research methods through a comprehensive comparison.

 

3-What is the main reason for using first-order percolation problem. Why the authors chose that model?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Most of the references used are pretty old. It needs to be updated.

2. Reference number 23 and 24 are incomplete. 

3. Some sentences are too big and the language has to be edited to make it appropriate for a journal. Some of the sentences are written in first person which has to be corrected.

4. The authors have tested the proposed work on IEEE 118 Bus system and IEEE 123 Bus systems, however, if there is a single line diagram of the cyber physical models as mentioned in equations 1a and 1b it will be better to understand for the readers.

5. As mentioned in line 270, "Node 1 and 4 are set as centralized control nodes. Node 2, 3 and 78 are set to be distributed control nodes.", Any specific reason for this choice? If so a mathematical equation will be helpful in understanding the selection of the nodes.

6. Is the Table 3 result for 118 or 123 bus system?

7. As mentioned in Table 4, how is the threshold level arrived at?

8. The conclusion part should be slightly modified with respect to the future direction given and avoid giving graphs in the conclusion section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper presents ideas in a good manner. However, a great deal of revision must be done to the text in order to fix errors and inaccuracies involving many expressions. For example:

- "It is emergent..." should be replaced with "It is crucial..." or "It is important...."

- "It is investable..." makes no sense. I am not sure what the word "investable" here refers to. Do you maybe mean "It should be further investigated that...."? Investable means something you can invest in. Please clarify. 

For figures 5 and 9, please elaborate on the why the topology vulnerability graph shoots to 1 (meaning extremely vulnerable) at single node label value and then is very low otherwise. It is also suggested that more explanation is provided for the other two graphs too.

In the conclusion, you mention that your study has some limitations for future work. Can you please elaborate on that? What are they? What causes these limitations to exist? How can you reduce the limiting factors...etc

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx