Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is nicely written. However, there are several things that can be further improved, as follows:

1. Figure 1 can be explained in more detail. 

2. Please explain in the manuscript on how to justify the risk level. 

3. Please explain more and give the definition about power side and cyber side in Table 3.

4. Please provide justification for the series in Figure 14.

Author Response

Point 1: Figure 1 can be explained in more detail.

 Response 1: I have added the corresponding explanations to the article manuscript.

 

Point 2: Please explain in the manuscript on how to justify the risk level.

Response 2: The risk level values in Table 1 refer to other literature and have been cited in the article, and the main parameters involved are the vulnerability distribution and vulnerability utilization of different services in different security partitions on the cyber side, which are evaluated by using the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).

 

Point 3: Please explain more and give the definition about power side and cyber side in Table 3.

Response 3: The numbers listed in Table 3 represent the name or number of the node in their re-spective subnetworks, such as node 4. I have added the corresponding explanations to the article manuscript.

 

Point 4: Please provide justification for the series in Figure 14.

Response 4: The simulation showed that the load adjustment parameters were cut off at 1.0, so I compared several curves using the control variable method, that is, the parameter of only one partition for each curve was less than 1.0

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Figures 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 are not cited in the body of the document.

2. Expressions such as "the above figure" or "the following figure" should be avoided, but rather the figure should be mentioned with its reference (numbering) in the body of the text for reference purposes.

3. Tables 1, 2 and 3 are not mentioned in the body of the document.

4. The same comment of point 2 should be applied to the formulas, since most of them are not cited in the document with their respective number.

5. In the conclusions it is stated that "the indexes can also be used to quantitatively evaluate the combined importance and vulnerability of the coupled node pairs in later studies", however this is not reflected in the document, it is not expressed how the importance or vulnerability of the coupled node pairs can be quantified, this should be clearly defined in the document.

Author Response

Point 1: Figures 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 are not cited in the body of the document.

 Response 1: The manuscript has been modified.

 

Point 2: Expressions such as "the above figure" or "the following figure" should be avoided, but rather the figure should be mentioned with its reference (numbering) in the body of the text for reference purposes.

Response 2: The manuscript has been modified.

 

Point 3: Tables 1, 2 and 3 are not mentioned in the body of the document.

Response 3: The manuscript has been modified.

 

Point 4: The same comment of point 2 should be applied to the formulas, since most of them are not cited in the document with their respective number.

Response 4: The manuscript has been modified.

 

Point 5: In the conclusions it is stated that "the indexes can also be used to quantitatively evaluate the combined importance and vulnerability of the coupled node pairs in later studies", however this is not reflected in the document, it is not expressed how the importance or vulnerability of the coupled node pairs can be quantified, this should be clearly defined in the document.

Response 5: In fact, most literature establishes node indicators only to assess the characteristics of various aspects of nodes, such as the importance or vulnerability mentioned, but this is not the focus of my article. I have made corresponding corrections in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx