Search Results

Functionalities such as automated driving, connectivity and cyber-security have gained increasing importance over the past few years. The importance of these functionalities will continue to grow as these cutting-edge technologies mature and market acceptance increases.

To build secure systems of road vehicles, the cybersecurity engineering standard ISO21434[11] suggests the evaluation of vulnerabilities throughout engineering process, such as attack path analysis, system requirement stage, software architecture, design, and implementation and testing phases. ...With my analysis and practices, it is appropriate to include the common vulnerabilities that ought to be an integral part of the automotive cybersecurity engineering process. In this paper, the author would like to provide a list of vulnerabilities that might be a suggestion for threat analysis and risk assessment and propose two solutions that may be adopted directly in the V-model for security-relevant software development.

Additional complicating factors, such as cybersecurity concerns combined with a first responder’s legal authority, may pose challenges for traditional data collection.

Android applications have historically faced vulnerabilities to man-in-the-middle attacks due to insecure custom SSL/TLS certificate validation implementations. In response, Google introduced the Network Security Configuration (NSC) as a configuration-based solution to improve the security of certificate validation practices. NSC was initially developed to enhance the security of Android applications by providing developers with a framework to customize network security settings. However, recent studies have shown that it is often not being leveraged appropriately to enhance security. Motivated by the surge in vehicular connectivity and the corresponding impact on user security and data privacy, our research pivots to the domain of mobile applications for vehicles. As vehicles increasingly become repositories of personal data and integral nodes in the Internet of Things (IoT) ecosystem, ensuring their security moves beyond traditional issues to one of public safety and trust.

Autonomous vehicles might one day be able to implement privacy preserving driving patterns which humans may find too difficult to implement. In order to measure the difference between location privacy achieved by humans versus location privacy achieved by autonomous vehicles, this paper measures privacy as trajectory anonymity, as opposed to single location privacy or continuous privacy. This paper evaluates how trajectory privacy for randomized driving patterns could be twice as effective for autonomous vehicles using diverted paths compared to Google Map API generated shortest paths. The result shows vehicles mobility patterns could impact trajectory and location privacy. Moreover, the results show that the proposed metric outperforms both K-anonymity and KDT-anonymity.

In agriculture industry, increasing use of Vehicle Internet of Things (IoT), telematics and emerging technologies are resulting in smarter machines with connected solutions. Inter and Intra Communication with vehicle to vehicle and inside vehicle - Electronic Control Unit (ECU) to ECU or ECU (Electronic Control Unit) to sensor, requirement for flow of data increased in-turn resulting in increased need for secure communication. In this paper, we focus on functional verification and validation of secure Controller Area Network (CAN) for intra vehicular communication to establish confidentiality, integrity, authenticity, and freshness of data, supporting safety, advanced automation, protection of sensitive data and IP (Intellectual Property) protection. Network security algorithms and software security processes are the layers supporting to achieve our cause.

By looking into the vehicle-infrastructure cooperation (VIC) which is oriented towards intelligent, networked and integrated development, this paper analyzes and proposes the essence and development direction of Intelligent Vehicle Infrastructure Cooperation Systems (I-VICS). With an in-depth analysis of technologies of core importance to VIC and influence factors that constrain VIC development as a whole, the paper comes up with a technological route for VIC, and identifies a direction for vehicle-infrastructure cooperative development that progresses from primary to intermediate cooperation, then to advanced cooperation, and finally to full-fledged cooperation. Policy recommendations aiming at strengthening top-level design, building an integrated vehicle-infrastructure-cloud platform, expediting independence of key techs, building robust standards and regulations for VIC, enhancing workforce development as well as greater efforts at market promotion are put forward.

Automotive safety is always the focus of consumers, the selling point of products, the focus of technology. In order to achieve automatic driving, interconnection with the outside world, human-automatic system interaction, the security connotation of intelligent and connected vehicles (ICV) changes: information security is the basis of its security. Functional safety ensures that the system is operating properly. Behavioral safety guarantees a secure interaction between people and vehicles. Passive security should not be weakened, but should be strengthened based on new constraints. In terms of information safety, the threshold for attacking cloud, pipe, and vehicle information should be raised to ensure that ICV system does not fail due to malicious attacks. The cloud is divided into three cloud platforms according to functions: ICVs private cloud, TSP cloud, public cloud.

Less emphasis has been placed to-date on helping ensure cybersecurity of cyber-physical automotive systems. However, this is changing as both the world and the automotive industry become more aware of the potential ramifications of cyber-attacks on vehicles.

Advanced Autonomous Vehicles (AV) for SAE Level 3 and Level 4 functions will lead to a new understanding of the operation phase in the overall product lifecycle. Regulations such as the EU Implementing Act and the German L4 Act (AFGBV) request a continuous field surveillance, the handling of critical E/E faults and software updates during operation. This is required to enhance the Operational Design Domain (ODD) during operation, offering Functions on Demand (FoD), by increasing software features within these autonomous vehicle systems over the entire digital product lifecycle, and to avoid and reduce downtime by a malfunction of the Autonomous Driving (AD) software stack.

Modern automobiles collect around 25 gigabytes of data per hour and autonomous vehicles are expected to generate more than 100 times that number. In comparison, the Apollo Guidance Computer assisting in the moon launches had only a 32-kilobtye hard disk. Without question, the breadth of in-vehicle data has opened new possibilities and challenges. The potential for accessing this data has led many entrepreneurs to claim that data is more valuable than even the vehicle itself. These intrepid data-miners seek to explore business opportunities in predictive maintenance, pay-as-you-drive features, and infrastructure services. Yet, the use of data comes with inherent challenges: accessibility, ownership, security, and privacy. Unsettled Legal Issues Facing Data in Autonomous, Connected, Electric, and Shared Vehicles examines some of the pressing questions on the minds of both industry and consumers. Who owns the data and how can it be used?

Its extensive application of data networks, including enhanced external digital communication, forced the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), for the first time, to set “Special Conditions” for cybersecurity. In the 15 years that ensued, airworthiness regulation followed suit, and all key rule-, regulation-, and standard-making organizations weighed in to establish a new airworthiness cybersecurity superset of legislation, regulation, and standardization. ...In the 15 years that ensued, airworthiness regulation followed suit, and all key rule-, regulation-, and standard-making organizations weighed in to establish a new airworthiness cybersecurity superset of legislation, regulation, and standardization. The resulting International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) resolutions, US and European Union (EU) legislations, FAA and European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) regulations, and the DO-326/ED-202 set of standards are already the de-facto, and soon becoming the official, standards for legislation, regulation, and best practices, with the FAA already mandating it to a constantly growing extent for a few years now—and EASA adopting the set in its entirety in July 2020.

Day by day, airports adopt more IoT devices. However, airports are not exempt from possible failures due to malware’s proliferation that can abuse vulnerabilities. Computer criminals can access, corrupt, and extract information from individuals or companies. This paper explains the development of a propagation model, which started with a Delphi process. We discuss the preliminary implications for airports of the simulation model built from the Delphi recommendations.