Journal: Volume 31, No. 1, 2026
Pages: 118 – 127
DOI: https://doi.org/10.62660/bcstu/1.2026.118
281 Views

Mesh architectures and immune-inspired mechanisms in defending critical infrastructure

Viktoriia Semerenska
Received 12.09.2025
Revised 05.02.2026
Accepted 16.03.2026
Published 08.04.2026

Abstract

Critical infrastructure increasingly operates in interconnected, software-defined environments and is simultaneously subject to targeted cyberattacks that disrupt key services. Traditional perimeter approaches are proving insufficient as they allow attackers to remain in systems for long periods of time and leave recovery mechanisms vulnerable. The article explored the applicability of the principles of mesh cybersecurity architecture and digital immune systems, which have been developed in cloud environments, to the public and industrial sectors. The aim of the study was to evaluate the transfer of mesh and immune approaches to the water supply, energy, and municipal services sectors and to demonstrate their impact on resilience in real incidents. The methodology combined a review of cloud security patterns, comparative case studies, and threat scenario modeling. Two events were considered: a cyberattack on the municipal infrastructure of a large US city and a transnational campaign against operational technologies in the water and gas sector. In the first case, the lack of segmentation allowed the virus to spread unhindered between network segments, while in the second, the lack of automated monitoring led to a delay in detecting the intrusion. For each event, the progression of the attack was compared with control points where distributed control nodes, identity-based segmentation, and feedback loops could limit the impact and initiate automated recovery. The results confirmed that mesh combined with immune-like responses provided faster isolation, controlled degradation, and recovery based on behavioral signals such as abnormal commands or configuration changes. Simulation modeling showed that the average system recovery time was reduced by 35-40% in scenarios with a mesh architecture, and the spread of the attack was limited to one segment instead of four. The practical value of this work lies in providing a roadmap for the gradual improvement of monitoring systems without a complete redesign, which is useful for operators of critical infrastructure and industrial enterprises

Keywords

resilience; operational technology; distributed enforcement; segmentation; cyber resilience; digital twins

References

  1. Aickelin, U., Greensmith, J., & Twycross, J. (2004). Immune system approaches to intrusion detection: A review. In G. Nicosia, V. Cutello, P.J. Bentley & J. Timmis (Eds.), Artificial immune systems (pp. 316-329). Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-30220-9_26.
  2. Alauthman, A., & Al-Hyari, A. (2025). Intelligent fault detection and self-healing mechanisms in wireless sensor networks using machine learning and flying fox optimization. Computers, 14(6), article number 233. doi: 10.3390/computers14060233.
  3. Alcaraz, C., & Lopez, J. (2012). Analysis of requirements for critical control systems. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, 5(3), 137-145. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcip.2012.08.003.
  4. Alcaraz, C., & Zeadally, S. (2015). Critical infrastructure protection: Requirements and challenges for the 21st century. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, 8, 53-66. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcip.2014.12.002.
  5. Aldhaheri, S., Alghazzawi, D., Cheng, L., Barnawi, A., & Alzahrani, B.A. (2020). Artificial immune systems approaches to secure the Internet of Things: A systematic review of the literature and recommendations for future research. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 157, article number 102537. doi: 10.1016/j. jnca.2020.102537.
  6. August, T., Noh, D., Shamir, N., & Shin, H. (2024). Cyberattacks, operational disruption, and investment in resilience measures. Management Science, 71(9), 7390-7413. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2022.00430.
  7. Bejoy, B.J., Raju, G., Swain, D., & Acharya, B. (2022). A generic cyber immune framework for anomaly detection using artificial immune systems. Applied Soft Computing, 130, article number 109680. doi: 10.1016/j. asoc.2022.109680.
  8. CISA. (2023). Critical infrastructure security and resilience. Retrieved from https://www.cisa.gov/topics/criticalinfrastructure-security-and-resilience.
  9. CISA. (2024). Alert (AA24-121A): CyberAv3ngers threat activity targeting water and wastewater systems. Retrieved from https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/cybersecurity-advisories/aa23-335a.
  10. De Marco, A., Berardi, D., Galuppi, M., & Lombardi, M. (2025). Quantitative resilience assessment on critical infrastructures: A systematic literature review of the last decade (2014-2024). Journal of Safety Science and Resilience, 6(3), article number 100201. doi: 10.1016/j.jnlssr.2025.02.002.
  11. ENISA. (2023). ENISA threat landscape 2023. Retrieved from https://www.enisa.europa.eu/publications/enisathreat-landscape-2023.
  12. Ganesh Raja, M., & Jeyalaksshmi, S. (2024). Self-configuration and self-healing framework using clustering for IoT-based wireless sensor networks. International Journal of Sensor Networks, 24(3), article number 2350022. doi: 10.1142/S0219265923500226.
  13. Homaei, M., Mogollón-Gutiérrez, Ó., Sancho, J.C., Ávila, M., & Caro, A. (2025). A review of digital twins and their application in cybersecurity based on artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence Review, 57, article number 201. doi: 10.1007/s10462-024-10805-3.
  14. Järveläinen, J., Dang, D., Mekkanen, M., & Vartiainen, T. (2025). Towards a framework for improving cyber security resilience of critical infrastructure against cyber threats: A dynamic capabilities approach. Journal of Decision Systems, 34(1), aticle number 2479546. doi: 10.1080/12460125.2025.2479546.
  15. Johnphill, O., Sadiq, A.S., Al-Obeidat, F., Al-Khateeb, H., Taheir, M.A., Kaiwartya, O., & Ali, M. (2023). Self-healing in cyber-physical systems using machine learning. Future Internet, 15(7), article number 244. doi: 10.3390/ fi15070244.
  16. Krauze, B., & Grabis, J. (2024). A conceptual model of digital immune system to increase the resilience of technology ecosystems. In J. Araújo, J.L. de la Vara, M.Y. Santos & S. Assar (Eds.), Research challenges in information science (pp. 82-96). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-59465-6_6.
  17. Liu, C., Tan, R., Wu, Y., Feng, Y., Jin, Z., Zhang, F., Liu, Y., & Liu, Q. (2024). Dissecting zero trust: Research landscape and its implementation in IoT. Cybersecurity, 7, article number 20. doi: 10.1186/s42400-024-00212-0.
  18. López-Vilos, N., Valencia-Cordero, C., Souza, R.D., & Montejo-Sánchez, S. (2023). Clustering-based energy-efficient self-healing strategy for WSNs under jamming attacks. Sensors, 23(15), article number 6894. doi: 10.3390/ s23156894.
  19. Ma, T., Ali, S., & Yue, T. (2021). Testing self-healing cyber-physical systems under uncertainty with reinforcement learning: An empirical study. Empirical Software Engineering, 26, article number 52. doi: 10.1007/s10664-021-09941-z.
  20. Mchirgui, N., Quadar, N., Kraiem, H., & Lakhssassi, A. (2024). The applications and challenges of digital twin technology in smart grids: A comprehensive review. Applied Sciences, 14(23), article number 10933. doi: 10.3390/ app142310933.
  21. Naqvi, M.A., Malik, S., Astekin, M., & Moonen, L. (2022). On evaluating self-adaptive and self-healing systems using chaos engineering. In 2022 IEEE international conference on autonomic computing and self-organizing systems (ACSOS) (pp. 1-10). California: IEEE. doi: 10.1109/ACSOS55765.2022.00018.
  22. Paul, B., et al. (2024). Potential smart grid vulnerabilities to cyber attacks: Current threats and mitigation strategies. Heliyon, 10(19), article number e37980. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e37980.
  23. Ramos-Cruz, B., Andreu-Perez, J., & Martínez, L. (2024). The cybersecurity mesh: A comprehensive survey of involved artificial intelligence methods, cryptographic protocols and challenges for future research. Neurocomputing, 581, article number 127427. doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2024.127427.
  24. Rathnayaka, B., Robert, D., Adikariwattage, V., Siriwardana, C., Meegahapola, L., Setunge, S., & Amaratunga, D. (2024). A unified framework for evaluating the resilience of critical infrastructure: Delphi survey approach. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 110, article number 104598. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104598.
  25. Riggs, H., Tufail, S., Parvez, I., Tariq, M., Khan, M.A., Amir, A., Vuda, K.V., & Sarwat, A.I. (2023). Impact, vulnerabilities, and mitigation strategies for cyber-attacks on critical infrastructure: A 20-year perspective. Sensors, 23(8), article number 4060. doi: 10.3390/s23084060.
  26. Sen, O., Bleser, N., & Ulbig, A. (2024). Digital twin for evaluating detective countermeasures in smart grid cybersecurity. ArXiv. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.03973.
  27. Singh, K., Chatterjee, S., Mariani, M., & Wamba, S.F. (2025). Cybersecurity resilience and innovation ecosystems for sustainable business excellence: Examining the dramatic changes in the macroeconomic business environment. Technovation, 143, article number 103219. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2025.103219.
  28. Yigit, Y.Y., Ferrag, M.A., Sarker, I.H., Maglaras, L.A., Chrysoulas, C., Moradpoor, N., & Janicke, H. (2024). Generative AI, challenges, and opportunities for critical infrastructure protection. ArXiv. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.04874.
  29. Zanasi, C., Russo, S., & Colajanni, M. (2024). Flexible zero trust architecture for the cybersecurity of industrial IoT infrastructures. Ad Hoc Networks, 156, article number 103414. doi: 10.1016/j.adhoc.2024.103414.

Suggested citation

Semerenska, V. (2026). Mesh architectures and immune-inspired mechanisms in defending critical infrastructure. Bulletin of Cherkasy State Technological University, 31(1), 118-127. https://doi.org/10.62660/bcstu/1.2026.118