Presenting a Model for Evaluation of the Physical Protection of Critical Installations for Passive Defense against Physical and Sabotage Threats
Abstract
Physical protection of critical installations is one of the most important methods for passive defense of infrastructures. Physical protection reduces the success probability of a physical or sabotage attack. In this article, an efficient model is presented to evaluate the physical protection of critical installations based on critical detection point concept. In this model there is no need to calculate the success probability of the attack for all adversary paths of that critical installation. Furthermore, the abilities and capabilities of the saboteurs are also considered in calculating the success probability of an attack against the critical installation. Calculation of the model and determination of the success probability of attack against the critical installation is implemented by Monte-Carlo method which avoid the complex deterministic calculation methods with complex conditional probabilities. The simulation of presented model is compared with other models and the results are tested.
(2018). Presenting a Model for Evaluation of the Physical Protection of Critical Installations for Passive Defense against Physical and Sabotage Threats. Journal of Advanced Defense Science & Technology, 8(4), 387-398.
MLA
. "Presenting a Model for Evaluation of the Physical Protection of Critical Installations for Passive Defense against Physical and Sabotage Threats", Journal of Advanced Defense Science & Technology, 8, 4, 2018, 387-398.
HARVARD
(2018). 'Presenting a Model for Evaluation of the Physical Protection of Critical Installations for Passive Defense against Physical and Sabotage Threats', Journal of Advanced Defense Science & Technology, 8(4), pp. 387-398.
VANCOUVER
Presenting a Model for Evaluation of the Physical Protection of Critical Installations for Passive Defense against Physical and Sabotage Threats. Journal of Advanced Defense Science & Technology, 2018; 8(4): 387-398.