Critical Infrastructure Protection Strategies

This assignment delves into the crucial topic of critical infrastructure protection. It examines various challenges and vulnerabilities faced by these systems, including cyber attacks, natural disasters, and cascading effects. The focus is on understanding different protection strategies, risk assessment methodologies, and approaches to enhance organizational resilience in the face of potential threats. Students are encouraged to analyze real-world case studies and research current trends in critical infrastructure security.

Running head: CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
Critical Infrastructure Protection
Name of the student
Name of the University
Author’s Note

1
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................2
Overview..........................................................................................................................................2
Risk Assessment..............................................................................................................................3
Risk Management............................................................................................................................6
COUNTERACT..............................................................................................................................9
Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................10
References......................................................................................................................................12

2
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
Introduction
The transportation industry has been creating various critical issues to the human over
several centuries. The railway transport has to evolve and reaching its peak point of providing
transportation services. This report discusses the Acela Express between Washington D.C. and
Boston USA.
This report focuses on the critical condition of this railway and weakness that can be
exploited during a terrorist attack. This report explains the intention of any terrorist group to
attack this railway system. Various risks involved in this railway have been identified and
critically analyzed in the report.
This report outlines the risk assessment and risk management of the Acela Express
between Washington D.C. and Boston USA. Various steps and strategies have been suggested
for mitigating these risks including threats of terrorist attacks on the railway system in the USA.
These strategies include both protective and resilience measures.
Overview
The Acela Express is a train under the Amtrak’s flagship service providing services along
the Northeast Corridor in the Northeastern United States between Washington, D.C. and Boston
(Edwards 2014). This train has 14 intermediate stops during its journey including Baltimore,
Philadelphia and New York City. A huge number of passengers are travelling on this train
approximately 3.4 million passengers in 2016. It has provided a huge revenue of $585 million to
the Amtrak. Lewis (2014) commented that these trains use tilting technology that provides
controlled centripetal forces for travelling at high speed. Acela operates routes used by freight
and slower passenger traffic. It reaches maximum speed in only a few stations. This train travels

3
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
through high-density population area of the country. Therefore, it does not travel through its
maximum speed.
Risk Assessment
Various risks have been identified in the railway system including the Acela trains. These
risks have created a critical situation for the railway system. Alcaraz and Zeadally (2015)
mentioned that there have been various attacks and accidents recorded that have created a havoc
among passengers during travelling in the Acela trains. Various strategies have been used by the
culprits to create a critical situation among the passengers. Therefore, risks and threats have been
increasing in the trains. Therefore, risks assessment process have to be implemented on the
railway system of the Acela trains. These trains used to travel through crowded areas of the
country that have created most attack prone zone for them.
As commented by Betts (2015), there are various weak points of the trains that have
created the vulnerability to risks and threats. The speed of the train is the main reason for
accidents. Edwards (2014) stated that these trains used to travel at 150 MPH, which is a huge
speed for a vehicle. As these trains travel through the populated area, the chances of accidents
increases. The track inspection of the train has been of poor quality. Therefore, it creates the high
risk for trains to dislocate from the railway tracks and might meet with an accident. The track
configuration at Penn Station New York has a complex maze of slip switches that can be unique
in various ways. Around 1,200 train movements are happening within this 21 track, seven-tunnel
station area in downtown Manhattan. However, there are 12 tunnels in 20.6 miles (Stergiopoulos
et al. 2016).
Track Geometry Measuring System (TGMS)
Track Description Inspection Frequency

4
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
FRA Regulation Minimum EP2007 Preferred EP2007
Segments with track
speed >=125 MPH
Twice within 60-
days
Every 30 days Every 15 days
Segments with track
speed >= 110 MPH
Twice within 120-
days
Every 30 days Every 30 days
Segments with track
speed >= 90 MPH
Not Regulated Every 90 days Every 45 days
Other main tracks,
terminals, turnouts,
and crossovers
Not Regulated Annually Every 6 months
Contract Carrier
Routes
Not Regulated Every 2 years Annually
Commuter Contract
Operations
Not Regulated As required by contract
Table 1: Track Geometry Measuring System
(Source: Stergiopoulos et al. 2016, pp.247)
The electrification of the Pennsylvania Railway’s main line between New York and
Washington D.C. and other suburban lines have radiated from Philadelphia faster schedules and
increasing congestion region of the north-eastern region in the US. The checking of IDs and
luggage screening have been a great problem in the US railway system.
On 10 September, Khalid al-Khalil and Mu’ammar al-Nadir returned to Boston. On 11
September, two men retrieved the cobalt-60 sources Khalid al-Kahlil has pre-positioned at
Boston (Bennett 2017). Using Mu’ammar al-Nadir’s access to secured areas of Amtrak, the two
men boarded an Acela Express train in the early morning hours prior to the train’s first commute
from Boston to New York City.
The company have not properly maintained its duties and responsibilities in the market.
Various divisions of the railway network have been suffering from enormous financial crisis due
to these terrorist attacks on the railways. Fekete, Tzavella and Baumhauer (2017) commented
that the management structure of the company has been suffering from the corruption and other

5
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
illegal activities at a workplace. The terrorist attacks done by Al-Qaeda have disrupted the moral
of the employees and passengers of the company.
Effective Risk assessment methodologies are included in this case for implementing the
critical infrastructure protection (CIP) in the railway industry. Paté‐Cornell et al. (2017)
mentioned that the CIP program has created several substantial academic resources for
enhancing protection, resilience and preparedness of the Nation’s critical infrastructure.
Methodologies are developed for mitigating various threats and risks in the railway industry.
Sustainable policy needs to be implemented under the CIP cycle in order to maintain efficiency
and vulnerability in the railway system. The terrorist attacks have been creating potential threats
and risks in the railway system of USA. Gharehyakheh, Tolk, Fritts and Cantu (2017) stated that
the policymakers and stakeholders of the railway system have been looking for implementing
strict laws and CIP cycle in this context. The consequences including death of passengers,
financial loss and harassment have been prevailing among individuals of the country. Steering
between markets approaches has helped in providing several aspects of the risks assessment
process. Various catastrophic changes have been done by government in order to implement CIP
cycle. These changes include the change in the policies of railway and implementation of several
railway security acts including Rail Safety Improvement Act 2008 (Meyer-Nieberg et al. 2017).

6
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
Figure 1: Risk assessment process
(Source: Ouyang, M. and Fang 2017, pp.911)
A cost-effective security system has been installed in the trains that have helped in
alarming in any terrible condition during the terrorist attack or an accident. The security of the
rail system has been a prior function of government. The CIP program has created several
substantial academic resources for enhancing protection, resilience and preparedness of the
Nation’s critical infrastructure. Kitagawa, Preston and Chadderton (2017) commented that the
CIP program has acted as a third party in order to maintain the security proposal in the railway
industry of USA. Global leaders have provided funding in the implementation of this program in
the railway industry.
Pescaroli and Kelman (2017) stated that after the catastrophic situation of 9/11 attack, the
government has been strict in implementing laws and policies in the state. The stakeholders of
the company have been ordered to implement this CIP program in their company for providing
security to the passengers from various threats and risks. The CIP program provides timely

7
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
analysis of the current issues in the railway system including the safety and terrorist attack. A
theoretical based approach has been taken in order to implement CIP program in order to
minimize risks threats involved in railways. Public and government support have been a key
opportunity of the CIP cycle that initiates different liabilities in the railway system. Resilience
can be addressed with the help of RI that is a preliminary phase (Ani, He and Tiwari 2017).
Therefore, the evaluation of the RI has been based on the same methodology including design
and data collection method. Data is based on the robustness and resourcefulness of the facility
provided by the railway system.
Risk Management
Risk management is a concept that aligns identifying, quantifying, mitigating risks and
reviewing the solution. Gustavsson et al. (2017) commented that Risk management process
depends on the various factors that are creating the risks in the system. In this case, railway
system of the US has been facing several risks including accidents, poor management and
terrorist attack. Therefore, risk management imposes a proper control over possible future events
in order to manage risks in the railway system.

8
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
Figure 2: Determining risk management process in railway system
(Source: Liu et al. 2017, pp.574)
Terrorist attacks have been a major risk and threat in the Acela Express train. After the
9/11 attack in the US, the government have been terrified of the terrorist attack and taking useful
steps in order to minimize this threat. Implementation of strict laws and acts have been initiated
in the country (Ouyanget al. 2017). The security of sensitive areas including railway station,
airport, hospitals and shopping malls have been increased. This has helped in maintaining the
security of the state.
There have been various loopholes and weaknesses in the railway system in the USA.
The Acela train travels through high-density population area. Therefore, the speed of the train is
a major problem for the railway system. This train is not able to run at a high speed through this
area. The facilities on the train have been degraded from past years. This has created the decrease
in the interest of the passengers to travel through this train (Pant et al. 2017). One of the major

9
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
weaknesses is the security of the train. There has been the increase in the terrorist attacks on the
train. Small robbery including snatching of ornaments and money has been a common problem
in this train. Therefore, the system has been suffering from the security problems. Therefore, a
risk management policy has to be implemented in the railway system to mitigate these problems.
The government of the company have been focusing on maintaining the effort done by
the council of the railways. The use of the security guards at each train, checking luggage and id
have helped in providing security to the railway. The disastrous impact of the terrorist attacks has
affected potential measures for development of the railways in the country. The use of various
methods including Information and communication technologies (ICT) have helped in providing
reliability, security and system safety in the railway system. It also provides seat availability,
operations and minimizing the cost of the railways. Alcaraz and Zeadally (2015) mentioned that
ICT devices have helped in providing visual surveillance to the system. CCTV cameras are
installed in the trains and platforms that provide the continuous update of the activities. Multiple
cyber components can be secured with the help of ICT. Various methods including wireless
communication and data transfer have been secured that have an intersection of information by
the terrorist groups. Therefore, terrorist attacks in the trains and railway system can be
minimized. Terrorist activities can be both physical and technological. However, terrorist used to
perform cyber-attacks on the server of the railway systems. Various viruses and malware are
injected into the server of a railway system. These viruses and malware used to intrude into
databases of a system and cause data loss. Therefore, the blueprint and train route maps are in
danger due to cyber-attacks.
The Critical Infrastructure Protection Decision Support (CIPDSS) is a tool that helps in
decision-making system for critical infrastructures. This tool is applicable for every

10
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
infrastructure and helps decision makers to decide upon mitigating strategies from the risks
involved in the systems. This methodology helps in maintaining an appropriate approach in order
to function towards a concrete decision related to problem-solving approach. The terrorist attack
can be minimized by the use of CIPDSS. Alcaraz and Zeadally (2015) mentioned that impacts of
terrorist attack have been deadly on the mind of the passengers. There have been many deaths
occurred due to the terrorist attacks on the trains. However, these impacts have been aggregated
with different sectors with common metrics. Therefore, evaluation of these impacts has helped in
mitigating various risks in the railway systems.
Figure 3: CIPDSS Framework
(Source: Ani et al. 2017, pp. 56)
COUNTERACT
The cluster of User Network in Transport and Energy related to Anti-Terrorist Activities
(COUNTERACT) is based on providing security to the railway system for strategies to mitigate
terrorist activities. Paté‐Cornell et al. (2017) mentioned that this concept has focused on terrorist

11
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
attacks in energy and transport sectors. The security measures in transport sectors including
railway have been focused on the non-structural infrastructure. The disastrous impact of the
terrorist attacks has affected potential measures for development of the railways in the country.
These attacks have hampered the development of the railway system. The vulnerability of the
probability assessment has helped in detecting gaps and loopholes in the security system of the
railways. The weak points have been detected in the cost, effectiveness, insurance and time for
implementing daily basis operations. The traditional risk management process has been removed
with the modern approaches to the risk management process. Severity levels of the risks have
been initiated in which, terror attacks have been rated as the topmost high-risk level in the
system. Increase in the terrorist attacks has created a critical situation for the railways. The
implementation of the advanced technology has helped in maintaining a proper approach for
mitigating terrorism in the railway systems. Gustavsson et al. (2017) commented that the use of
biometrics in the transport system for making entry into the station might help on maintaining
the record of each passenger in the train. The use of x-ray machines helps n checking the body of
any individual carrying any metal thing with them. As commented by Betts (2015), therefore, it
helps in detecting any harmful metal things on the train. These parameters might help in
minimizing the terrorist activities in the trains as the railway system. The combination of the
probability assessment and the risk management helps in maintaining a methodology of creating
strategies for mitigating terrorism.
Conclusion
It can be concluded that the railway system of the USA has been suffering from the
terrorist attacks. The Acela Express travels through Washington DC to Boston, USA. These
routes have been terrified with various terrorist activities over the tine. Various risks have been

12
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
identified over time including high cost, accidents and terrorist activate in the trains. The
government of the country have been terrified with these activities and creating strategies for
mitigating these activities. The use of various tools and techniques have helped in reducing these
risks. The CIP cycle has helped in maintaining the policies and laws prepared by the government
in order to mitigate terrorism in the railway system. The terrorist has targeted the database of the
company by the cyber-attacks. Hackers have intruded into the online database of the railway and
breached personal and important data from it. These things have triggered terrorist activities in
the railway system. The risk management process has helped in maintaining the risks and threats
prevailing in the railway system. The use of several tools and techniques have contributed in
controlling terrorist activities in the railway system. The Critical Infrastructure Protection
Decision Support (CIPDSS) is a tool that helps in decision-making system for critical
infrastructures. The security measures in transport sectors including railway have been focused
on the non-structural infrastructure.

13
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
References
Alcaraz, C. and Zeadally, S., 2015. Critical infrastructure protection: Requirements and
challenges for the 21st century. International journal of critical infrastructure protection, 8,
pp.53-66.
Ani, U.P.D., He, H. and Tiwari, A., 2017. Review of cybersecurity issues in industrial critical
infrastructure: manufacturing in perspective. Journal of Cyber Security Technology, 1(1), pp.32-
74.
Bennett, B.T., 2017. Understanding, assessing, and responding to terrorism: Protecting critical
infrastructure and personnel. John Wiley & Sons.
Betts, J.A., 2015. Ethics, national security, and critical infrastructure protection (Doctoral
dissertation, Queen's University Belfast).
Edwards, C.I.P.M., 2014. Threats to Energy Resources and Infrastructure. Critical Infrastructure
Protection, 116, p.45.
Edwards, M. ed., 2014. Critical infrastructure protection (Vol. 116). IOS Press.
Fekete, A., Tzavella, K. and Baumhauer, R., 2017. Spatial exposure aspects contributing to
vulnerability and resilience assessments of urban critical infrastructure in a flood and blackout
context. Natural Hazards, 86(1), pp.151-176.
Gharehyakheh, A., Tolk, J., Fritts, S. and Cantu, J., 2017. A Survey Paper of Protecting Critical
Infrastructure: Applying High Reliability Theory to Advance Organizational Resilience. In IIE
Annual Conference. Proceedings (pp. 1968-1973). Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers
(IISE).

14
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
Gustavsson, P., Ibrahim, O., Johansson, B., Larsson, A., Lindqvister, T. and Olson, L., 2017.
Challenges for critical infrastructure reslience: cascading effects of payment system disruptions.
In 14th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Respons And
Management (Vol. 14, pp. 281-292). ISCRAM SOCIETY.
Kitagawa, K., Preston, J. and Chadderton, C., 2017. Preparing for disaster: a comparative
analysis of education for critical infrastructure collapse. Journal of Risk Research, 20(11),
pp.1450-1465.
Lewis, T.G., 2014. Critical infrastructure protection in homeland security: defending a
networked nation. John Wiley & Sons.
Liu, X., Shahidehpour, M., Li, Z., Liu, X., Cao, Y. and Li, Z., 2017. Power system risk
assessment in cyber attacks considering the role of protection systems. IEEE Transactions on
Smart Grid, 8(2), pp.572-580.
Meyer-Nieberg, S., Zsifkovits, M., Hauschild, D. and Luther, S., 2017. Simulation-Based
Analyses for Critical Infrastructure Protection: Identifying Risks by Using Data Farming.
In Operations Research Proceedings 2015 (pp. 349-354). Springer, Cham.
Ouyang, M. and Fang, Y., 2017. A mathematical framework to optimize critical infrastructure
resilience against intentional attacks. Computer‐Aided Civil and Infrastructure
Engineering, 32(11), pp.909-929.
Ouyang, M., Tian, H., Wang, Z., Hong, L. and Mao, Z., 2017. Critical infrastructure
vulnerability to spatially localized failures with applications to Chinese railway system. Risk
Analysis.

15
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
Pant, R., Thacker, S., Hall, J.W., Alderson, D. and Barr, S., 2017. Critical infrastructure impact
assessment due to flood exposure. Journal of Flood Risk Management.
Paté‐Cornell, M., Kuypers, M., Smith, M. and Keller, P., 2017. Cyber Risk Management for
Critical Infrastructure: A Risk Analysis Model and Three Case Studies. Risk Analysis.
Pescaroli, G. and Kelman, I., 2017. How critical infrastructure orients international relief in
cascading disasters. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 25(2), pp.56-67.
Stergiopoulos, G., Vasilellis, E., Lykou, G., Kotzanikolaou, P. and Gritzalis, D., 2016, March.
Classification and comparison of critical infrastructure protection tools. In International
Conference on Critical Infrastructure Protection (pp. 239-255). Springer, Cham.
Stergiopoulos, G., Vasilellis, S., Lykou, G., Kotzanikolaou, P. and Gritzalis, D., 2016, March.
Critical Infrastructure Protection tools: Classification and comparison. In Proc. of the 10th
International Conference on Critical Infrastructure Protection.