Protection Management Systems to Optimize Operative and Maintenance Processes in Electricity Sector Companies
Introduction: Electrical protections have gone from being a security element to becoming a system that has a lot of information and that can be used for functions such as signal recording, control, automation, communications, and others. However, many companies have installed advanced devices that a...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Lenguaje: | inglés |
| Publicado: |
2024
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=9826550 |
| Etiquetas: |
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Introduction: Electrical protections have gone from being a security element to becoming a system that has a lot of information and that can be used for functions such as signal recording, control, automation, communications, and others. However, many companies have installed advanced devices that are not being used to their fullest potential, and it may be interesting to exploit these possibilities in the electricity sector.
Objective: This article aims to evaluate the performance of functionality, handling, and cybersecurity in five different protection management systems (PMS).
Methodology: An experimental work is conducted with quantitative analysis evaluating three main categories: cybersecurity, handling, and functionality. In addition, thirteen aspects and five PMSs are compared. The data transmitted in the communication architecture from the electrical protection equipment is captured by a network monitoring software for its respective comparison with the original data validated with the hash technique that verifies its integrity. A comparison between the information that comes out of each intelligent electronic device (IED) with the one that reaches the PMS is performed, evaluating its behavior and data delivery times. Finally, the thirteen aspects are compared, describing their advantages and disadvantages, and achieving a quantitative performance assessment.
Results: The results show a quantitative weighting assigned for cybersecurity at 40%, handling at 30%, and functionality at 30%. PMS 1 obtains an overall performance of 73.1%, PMS 2 of 59.6%, PMS 3 of 59.6%, PMS 4 of 48.8%, and PMS 5 of 24.6%. PMS 4 obtained in cybersecurity a maximum of 90.4%, PMS 3 in handling 74.4%, and PMS 1 in functionality 77.6%. Finally, a risk analysis of the PMSs is conducted based on a qualitative assessment of compatibility, scalability, interoperability, data management, information cybersecurity, and backups. PMS 2 presents a predominantly high risk, PMS 4 reaches a low risk, and the other PMSs obtain a medium risk.
Conclusions: It is concluded that the performance of the IEDs in the evaluated PMSs can occur with different performances and behaviors. Therefore, conducting this type of analysis before business implementations is important. Cybersecurity is a matter of business continuity, so the results obtained in this matter from each PMS should be strongly considered, as is the case of the vulnerability of the TLSv1.0 protocol and the OpenVPN protocol, combined with the vulnerabilities generated using operating systems that require a constant update of the system. |
|---|