Search Results

This document addresses the development of security material for application specifications in SAE V2X Technical Committees. The assumption in this document is that two groups with distinct missions contribute to the development of each standard: the “Application Specification Team is in charge of specifying the application functionality and the “Security Specification Team” is in charge of specifying the security. The two teams may, of course, have a significant overlap of members.

SAE is developing a number of standards, including the SAE J2945/x and SAE J3161/x series, that specify a set of applications using message sets from the SAE J2735 data dictionary. (“Application” is used here to mean “a collection of activities including interactions between different entities in the service of a collection of related goals and associated with a given IEEE Provider Service Identifier (PSID)”). Authenticity and integrity of the communications for these applications are ensured using digital signatures and IEEE 1609.2 digital certificates, which also indicate the permissions of the senders using Provider Service Identifiers (PSIDs) and Service Specific Permissions (SSPs). The PSID is a globally unique identifier associated with an application specification that unambiguously describes how to build interoperable instances of that application.

This SAE Recommended Practice establishes a uniform practice for protecting vehicle components from "unauthorized" access through a vehicle data link connector (DLC). The document defines a security system for motor vehicle and tool manufacturers. It will provide flexibility to tailor systems to the security needs of the vehicle manufacturer. The vehicle modules addressed are those that are capable of having solid state memory contents accessed or altered through the data link connector. Improper memory content alteration could potentially damage the electronics or other vehicle modules; risk the vehicle compliance to government legislated requirements; or risk the vehicle manufacturer's security interests. This document does not imply that other security measures are not required nor possible.

This Recommended Practice defines the technical requirements for a terrestrial-based PNT system to improve vehicle (e.g., unmanned, aerial, ground, maritime) positioning/navigation solutions and ensure critical infrastructure security, complementing GNSS technologies.

Access mechanisms to system data and/or control is a primary use case of the hardware protected security environment (hardware protected security environment) during different uses and stages of the system. The hardware protected security environment acts as a gatekeeper for these use cases and not necessarily as the executor of the function. This section is a generalization of such use cases in an attempt to extract common requirements for the hardware protected security environment that enable it to be a gatekeeper. Examples are: Creating a new key fob Re-flashing ECU firmware Reading/exporting PII out of the ECU Using a subscription-based feature Performing some service on an ECU Transferring ownership of the vehicle Some of these examples are discussed later in this section and some have detailed sections of their own. This list is by no means comprehensive.

Connected vehicles can provide data from multiple sensors that monitor both the vehicle and the environment through which the vehicle is passing. The data, when shared, can be used to enhance and optimize transportation operations and management—specifically, traffic flow and infrastructure maintenance. This document describes an interface between vehicle and infrastructure for collecting vehicle/probe data. That data may represent a single point in time or may be accumulated over defined periods of time or distance, or may be triggered based on circumstance. The purpose of this document is to define an interoperable means of collecting the vehicle/probe data in support of the use cases defined herein. There are many additional use cases that may be realized based on the interface defined in this document. Note that vehicle diagnostics are not included within the scope of this document, but diagnostics-related features may be added to probe data in a future supplemental document.

This SAE Information Report J2836 establishes the instructions for the documents required for the variety of potential functions for PEV communications, energy transfer options, interoperability and security. This includes the history, current status and future plans for migrating through these documents created in the Hybrid Communication and Interoperability Task Force, based on functional objective (e.g., (1) if I want to do V2G with an off-board inverter, what documents and items within them do I need, (2) What do we intend for V3 of SAE J2953, …).

This Technical Governance is part of the SAE UCS Architecture Library and is primarily concerned with the UCS Architecture Model (AS6518) starting at Revision A and its user extensions. Users of the Model may extend it in accordance with AS6513 to meet the needs of their UCS Products. UCS Products include software components, software configurations and systems that provide or consume UCS services. For further information, refer to AS6513 Revision A or later. Technical Governance is part of the UCS Architecture Framework. This framework governs the UCS views expressed as Packages and Diagrams in the UCS Architecture Model.

This SAE Recommended Practice defines the Expanded Diagnostic Protocol (EDP), the requirements for the SAE J1978 OBD II Scan Tool for supporting the EDP protocol, and associated requirements for diagnosis and service information to be provided by motor vehicle manufacturers. Appendix A includes worked examples of the use of the protocol.

This SAE Recommended Practice defines the Expanded Diagnostic Protocol (EDP), the requirements for the SAE J1978 OBD II Scan Tool for supporting the EDP protocol, and associated requirements for diagnosis and service information to be provided by motor vehicle manufacturers. Appendix A includes worked examples of the use of the protocol.

This SAE Recommended Practice establishes a uniform practice for protecting vehicle components from "unauthorized" access through a vehicle data link connector (DLC). The document defines a security system for motor vehicle and tool manufacturers. It will provide flexibility to tailor systems to the security needs of the vehicle manufacturer. The vehicle modules addressed are those that are capable of having solid state memory contents accessed or altered through the data link connector. Improper memory content alteration could potentially damage the electronics or other vehicle modules; risk the vehicle compliance to government legislated requirements; or risk the vehicle manufacturer's security interests. This document does not imply that other security measures are not required nor possible.

AVSC Information Report for Change Risk Management AVSC00010202304 provides a process for change risk management for fleet-operated ADS-DVs using level 4 or 5 automation. The document addresses risks resulting from planned and unplanned changes in an ADS-DV design and/or operation. This information report is based on the concept of risk-informed decision-making. Making risk management decisions such as safety and change management, safety analysis, and safety assurance are especially applicable when moving from concept to production intent for the ADS-DV. Change Risk Management (CRM) does not replace best practices or other methods for managing safety anomalies or change management processes. It may instead be viewed as an additional resource that elaborates on how safety anomaly management and change management can be performed.

An ADS-operated vehicle’s operational design domain (ODD) is defined by the manufacturer based on numerous factors. Research is underway at other organizations to define and organize ODD elements into taxonomies and other relational constructs. In order to enhance collaboration and communication between manufacturers and developers and transportation authorities, common terms and consistent frameworks are needed. The conceptual framework presented by Automated Vehicle Safety Consortium establishes a lexicon that can be used consistently by ADS developers and manufacturers responsible for defining their ADS ODD. A common framework and lexicon will reduce confusion, align expectations, and therefore build public trust, acceptance, and confidence.