## 3 Proposed Approach  
The multi-layered defense approach in this research is structured to offer enhanced resilience through distinct, independently functioning layers, each tailored to mitigate specific threat types. To effectively evaluate this multi-layered approach, a controlled environment was established to maintain consistent variables across different security layers, enabling a clear comparison between a system using single-layer defenses and one using the proposed multi-layered model. For instance, external environmental factors such as network traffic volume, user behavior patterns, and external access frequency were standardized to assess the true impact of each defense layer independently. In contrast to a single-layer defense approach, which relies heavily on perimeter defenses such as firewalls, a layered defense system offers multiple independent security checkpoints across different layers, providing substantial protection even if one layer is compromised. Single-layer or perimeter-focused defense models are susceptible to full-system compromise because they concentrate defenses at a single point, making it easier for sophisticated attacks to bypass security measures once they breach the perimeter. For example, a single-layer strategy might depend on firewalls or antivirus software alone, which can be quickly overwhelmed by advanced persistent threats (APTs) or multi-vector attacks. In contrast, our layered defense model not only includes perimeter security but also embeds Intrusion Detection Systems (IDSs) and automated monitoring at each layer, ensuring that even if the firewall is compromised, further protective mechanisms at the application or network layer remain functional to prevent system-wide infiltration [34]. This multi-layered approach is designed to enable each security layer to independently address specific threat types while strengthening overall security through coordinated inter-layer integration. For instance, if a breach occurs at the network layer, the application layer's IDS proactively monitors for irregular command executions, thereby maintaining operational stability despite partial compromises. The methodology and analysis process follows a structured procedure as outlined below:  
* Data Collection Phase: Detailed timelines and primary impact metrics are documented from government reports for each cyberattack case, serving as foundational data. To \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Year** & **Event** & **Details** & **Malware** & **Attack Type** \\ \hline
2019 & Kyiv, Ukraine Blackout & Massive blackout caused by the & & \\  & Industryer malware & Industryer & Power outage \\ \hline
2017 & Middle East & Attempted full-remote control & & \\  & Petrochemical Facility & using Triton & & \\ \hline
2017 & Ukrainian Electrical & Destruction of various & & \\  & Companies and & administrative facilities, including & & \\  & Administrative Facilities & Ukrainian electric companies & & \\ \hline
2015 & Ukrainian Substation & & & \\  & & BlackEnergy3, affecting & & \\  & & 225,000 civilians & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Energy IT cyberattack cases. maintain consistency, specific external variables--such as time-based network activity and the frequency of external access--were controlled during data collection, ensuring that the influence of uncontrollable factors was minimized. For example, the same Indicators of Compromise and exploit tools were referenced across cases, allowing for a more standardized comparison between systems affected by each cyberattack. * Threat Analysis Phase: Data from each layer undergoes pattern recognition analysis to identify SCADA protocol vulnerabilities and implement countermeasures, such as digital signatures to ensure command integrity. IDS and firewall placements are optimized to enable cross-layer threat detection, with response protocols adjusted accordingly.