Search Results

With the increased need for cybersecurity in automotive systems due to the development of more advanced technologies and corresponding increased threat vectors, coupled with the upcoming International Organization for Standardization and the Society for Automotive Engineers (ISO/SAE) 21434 cybersecurity standard for automotive systems and cybersecurity regulations in The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (UNECE WP.29), it is becoming increasingly important for auto manufacturers and suppliers to have a clear and common understanding and agreement of cybersecurity metrics for the development and deployment of vehicles. ...Cybersecurity for automotive systems is challenging, and one of the major challenges is how to measure this specific system property. ...With the increased need for cybersecurity in automotive systems due to the development of more advanced technologies and corresponding increased threat vectors, coupled with the upcoming International Organization for Standardization and the Society for Automotive Engineers (ISO/SAE) 21434 cybersecurity standard for automotive systems and cybersecurity regulations in The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (UNECE WP.29), it is becoming increasingly important for auto manufacturers and suppliers to have a clear and common understanding and agreement of cybersecurity metrics for the development and deployment of vehicles.

In this paper, we outline past, present and future applications of automotive security for engine ECUs. Electronic immobilizers and anti-tuning countermeasures have been used for several years. Recently, OEMs and suppliers are facing more and more powerful attackers, and as a result, have introduced stronger countermeasures based on hardware security. Finally, with the advent of connected cars, it is expected that many things that currently require a physical connection will be done remotely in a near future. This includes remote diagnostics, reprogramming and engine calibration.

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.

Additionally, we go beyond the attack vectors listed in UN-R155 - using our own analysis, experience and insights, we explored other attack vectors that will also affect vehicle cybersecurity.

Abstract Automotive cybersecurity is steadily becoming a key factor in the worldwide adoption of connected and self-driving vehicles.

Supplier Eye Inflation ignites another supplier squeeze Toyota reinvesting in collaborative safety research SAE and NREL partner to strengthen EV-charging cybersecurity Expanding the 'bubble' of cabin acoustics 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning redefines the pickup paradigm GM's Hummer EV is like nothing else

SAE Standards News VS committees fully engaged on cybersecurity. Honda's new 10-speed is a slick shifter SAE Level 3 'hand off' challenging AI researchers Lightweight door module aims to trim vehicle weight Exclusive first drive: Torotrak's V-Charge technology New 10-speed auto delights in 2017 Ford F-150 Power and more underscore 2018 Toyota Camry I.D.

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

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.

Abstract Connecting vehicles to various network services increases the risk of in-vehicle cyberattacks. For automotive industries, the supply chain for assembling a vehicle consists of many different organizations such as component suppliers, system suppliers, and car manufacturers (CMs). Moreover, once a vehicle has shipped from the factory of the CM, resellers, dealers, and owners of the vehicle may add and replace the optional authorized and third-party equipment. Such equipment may have serious security vulnerabilities that may be targeted by a malicious attacker. The key management system of a vehicle must be applicable to all use cases. We propose a novel key management system adaptable to the electronic control unit (ECU) lifecycle of a vehicle. The scope of our system is not only the vehicle product line but also the third-party vendors of automotive accessories and vehicle maintenance facilities, including resellers, dealers, and vehicle users.

This SAE Information Report J2931/7 establishes the security requirements for digital communication between Plug-In Electric Vehicles (PEV), the Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) and the utility, ESI, Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) and/or Home Area Network (HAN).

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.

Software vulnerability management is one of the most critical and crucial security techniques, which analyzes the automotive software/firmware across the digital cockpit, ADAS, V2X, etc. domains for vulnerabilities, and provides security patches for the concerned Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE). The process of automotive SW/FW vulnerability management system between the OEMs and vendors happen through a channel of fixing a certain number of vulnerabilities by 1st tier supplier which needs to be verified in front of OEMs for the fixed number and type of patches in there deliverable SW/FW. The gap of verification between for the fixed patches between the OEMs and 1st tier supplier requires a reliable human independent intelligent technique to have a trustworthiness of verification.

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?

This document applies to the development of Plans for integrating and managing COTS assemblies in electronic equipment and Systems for the commercial, military, and space markets; as well as other ADHP markets that wish to use this document. For purposes of this document, COTS assemblies are viewed as electronic assemblies such as printed wiring assemblies, relays, disk drives, LCD matrices, VME circuit cards, servers, printers, laptop computers, etc. There are many ways to categorize COTS assemblies1, including the following spectrum: At one end of the spectrum are COTS assemblies whose design, internal parts2, materials, configuration control, traceability, reliability, and qualification methods are at least partially controlled, or influenced, by ADHP customers (either individually or collectively). An example at this end of the spectrum is a VME circuit card assembly.

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.

This interface document SAE J2286 revises the requirements for file formats as were originally described in SAE J1924. This document describes Interface 1 (I/F 1) in SAE J2461. This document does not imply the use of a specific hardware interface, but may be used with other hardware interfaces such as SAE J1939, ISO 15765 or ISO 14229. The requirements of SAE J2286 supersede the requirements defined by SAE J1924.

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 SAE Information Report J2931/7 establishes the security requirements for digital communication between Plug-In Electric Vehicles (PEV), the Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) and the utility, ESI, Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) and/or Home Area Network (HAN).

Digitally enabled mobility vehicles and services, including dockless bikesharing and electric scooter sharing, are generating and collecting a growing amount of mobility data. Mobility data holds great potential to support transportation officials and their efforts to manage the public right-of-way, but the unlimited distribution of mobility data carries untested risks to privacy and public trust. The Mobility Data Collaborative™ has identified the need to improve and coordinate understanding among all parties around foundational policy and legal issues to support mobility data sharing, including privacy and contracting. The guidelines are geared towards supporting a scalable mobility data sharing framework that aligns the interests of the public and private sectors while addressing privacy, transparency, data ownership, and consumer trust.