Automotive communication systems: from dependability to security

Automotive communication systems :
from dependability to security

Nicolas NAVET
Real-Time and Interoperability (TRIO) Group at INRIA Nancy

1st Seminar on Vehicular Communications and Applications (VCA 2011)
NetLab / SnT, Luxembourg - 30/05/2011

Dependability vs Security [from Laprie et al, ref.3]
“absence of unauthorized access to,
or handling of, system state”
“ability to
deliver a
service that Dependability Security
can justifiably
be trusted ”

Availability Reliability Safety Confidentiality Integrity Maintenability
Readiness for Continuity of Absence of Absence of Absence of Ability to
usage service catastrophic unauthorized improper undergo
consequences disclosure of system repairs and
for authorized information alterations evolutions
users only
“unauthorized”
system alteration

© 2011 INRIA / RealTime-at-Work - 2

Outline
1. Trends in automotive embedded systems: increasing
safety requirements and complexity

2. The (numerous) impediments/threats to dependability:
with a focus on timing constraints verification

3. Security against malicious attacks : physical access to the
vehicle or wireless access

Focus on the verification issues at the development phase
of the communication systems - highlight issues, not about solutions


Electronics is the driving force of innovation
Many new functions are safety
critical: brake assist, cruise control,
lane keeping, dynamic lights, etc

Picture from [10]

– 90% of new functions use software
– Electronics: 40% of total costs
– Huge complexity: 70 ECUs, 2500 signals,
>6 comm. protocols, multi-layered run-time
environment (AUTOSAR), multi-source
software, multi-core CPUs, number of
variants, etc

Strong costs and time-to-market constraints !


BMW 7 Series networking architecture [10]

ZGW = central
gateway
4 CAN buses
1 FlexRay Bus
1 MOST bus
Several LIN Buses
(not shown here)
1 Ethernet bus
Wireless

Picture from [4]


Impediments to safety: complexity!
Technologies: numerous, complex and not
explicit. conceived for critical systems
– e.g.: more than 150 specification documents
(textual) for Autosar, no two implementations
can behave identically!
Size of the system!
– Number of functional domains, buses, gateways, Autosar Basic Software
ECUs, size of code, tasks, wiring, number of
variants, etc
Design process
– Most developments are not done in-house :
less control on externalized developments
– Carry-over / Vehicle Family Management : need to
share/re-use architecture and sub-systems between
several brands/models with different requirements [2]
– Optimized solutions for each component / function
does not lead to a global optimal! [2] Wiring harness
Picture from [4]


impediments to safety: cultural/regulatory
Eg: Automotive embedded systems have not been designed
with the same standards as airplanes - different tradeoff costs
/ safety :
little (no?) fault-tolerance using hardware redundancy
Technical parameters are regarded as less important than cost for
supplier / components selection [2]
ISO2626-2 upcoming standard: no safety quantification, in-house
certification accepted
Lack well-accepted design process, decision on experience, “gut-
feeling”, poor tool support [2]
Verification / validation does not ensure 100% coverage

Formal verification is gaining acceptance:
code analysis, timing analysis, etc


Threats to safety :
the case of timing constraints


Several hundreds of timing constraints:
responsiveness, data refresh rate

Constraint :
brake light on < 50ms

Stimulus Response

Figure from [12]


Why timing constraints may not be respected
occasionally?
Middleware
Lack of precise specification : hard to identify Frame-packing task
5ms
the right timing requirements for each function
Lack of traceability : from the architects to the suppliers
Flaws in the verification:
– Knowledge of the system and its environment is incomplete: Waiting queue:
• What is done by the suppliers?
- FIFO
• Implementation choices really matter and standards do
not say everything 2 - Highest Priority
• Environmental issues: EMI, α-particles, heat, etc First
• Traffic is not always well characterized and/or well modeled 1 - OEM specific
e.g. aperiodic traffic ?! see [5]
– Testing /simulation alone is not enough CAN Controller
– Analysis is not enough too:
• Analytic models, especially complex ones, can be wrong 9 6 8
(remember “ CAN analysis refuted, revisited, etc” [6] ?!)
• They are often much simplified abstraction of reality buffer Tx
and might become optimistic: neglect FIFOs, hardware limitations
CAN Bus


Illustration: Worst-Case Response Times on a CAN bus
Frame waiting queues are HPF, except ECU1 where queue is FIFO
the OEM does not know or verification software cannot handle it …

Analysis Setup:
- Typical body network with 15 ECUs
generated by NETCARbench (freely available)
- WCRT computed with NETCAR-Analyzer
(freely available)

Many high-priority frames are delayed here because
a single ECU (out of 15) has a FIFO queue …


Threats to dependability:
Faults → errors → service failures [3]
When faults are introduced in the development phase ?
– Requirements capture + Specification + SW development: 99% (infineon [10])
– HW development : ε

Why ? The factors :
– Technologies: not conceived with dependability as a priority
– Complexity / size of the system
– Developments are mainly externalized
– Strong cost / time-to-market pressure
– Limited regulatory constraints
– Limited used of formal methods for verification
– Human factors
– etc


Security : some identified risks and
scenarios


Security : two scenarios
Case 1 : attackers have physical access to the vehicle
− Easy to get access to internal networks through the On-Board
Diagnostic (OBDII) port
− AFAIK, automotive systems are not protected at all
− Open question: should we go beyond basic protection measures?
Can we afford it?

Case 2 : remote access through wireless networks
− Strong protection needed against remote attacks because of
Internet access, manufacturer telematics services, Car-to-Car &
Car-to-infrastructure communication, , etc
− Open question: is it the case today ?


Physical access to the vehicle:
experiments in [11]
Connection to the OBD-II port

Attacks performed :
Picture from [11]
– Manipulate speedometer
– Injection of malicious code by re-flashing ECUs
(while driving!)
– Disable communications on the CAN buses
– Disable all lights
– Stop the engine
– Disable / lock (specific) brakes
– Were able to manipulate all ECUs!


Attacks through the wireless interfaces
Issue: there are a number of ECUs that have access to both the
internal networks and wireless networks, e.g. radio player,
bluetooth transmitters, wireless tire pressure sensors, etc

Code injection in other ECUs,
Code injection Denial-of-service by flooding,
external attack Falsification, etc

Telematics & Networks for
Multimedia networks real-time control
(wired / wireless ) (CAN, FlexRay, Lin)

An “infected” vehicle may contaminate others.


Virtualization as a means to enforce security
Example: Radio-player or Body Control Module with both an infotainment
(eg., Linux, Android) and an Autosar Virtual Machine (VM)

Communication between VMs through
the hypervisor “secure” mechanisms

Benefits
– Security despite open systems Hypervisor

– Preserve segregation in “vehicle domains”
– Best of both worlds in terms of know-how,
Telematics & Networks for
time-to-market
Multimedia networks real-time control
– etc (wired / wireless ) (CAN, FlexRay, Lin)

A likely use-case of virtualization – open questions: which technical solutions?
role/business model among actors? change wrt aftermarket? etc


References


References [1] N. Navet, F. Simonot-Lion, editors, The Automotive Embedded Systems
Handbook, Industrial Information Technology series, CRC Press / Taylor and
Francis, ISBN 978-0849380266, December 2008.
[2] RealTime-at-Work (RTaW), RTaW-Sim: a Fine-Grained Simulator of Controller
Area Network with Fault-Injection Capabilities, freely available on RTaW web
site: http://www.realtimeatwork.com, 2010.
[3] A. Avizienis, J.C. Laprie, B. Randell, “Dependability and its threat: a
taxonomy", IFIP Congress Topical Sessions 2004.
[4] D. Khan, R. Bril, N. Navet, “Integrating Hardware Limitations in CAN
Schedulability Analysis“, WiP at the 8th IEEE International Workshop on
Factory Communication Systems (WFCS 2010), Nancy, France, May 2010.
[5] D. Khan, N. Navet, B. Bavoux, J. Migge, “Aperiodic Traffic in Response Time
Analyses with Adjustable Safety Level“, IEEE ETFA2009, Mallorca, Spain,
September 22-26, 2009.
[6] R. Davis, A. Burn, R. Bril, and J. Lukkien, “Controller Area Network (CAN)
schedulability analysis: Refuted, revisited and revised”, Real-Time Systems,
vol. 35, pp. 239–272, 2007.
[7] M. D. Natale, “Evaluating message transmission times in Controller Area
Networks without buffer preemption”, in 8th Brazilian Workshop on Real-Time
Systems, 2006.
[8] C. Braun, L. Havet, N. Navet, "NETCARBENCH: a benchmark for techniques
and tools used in the design of automotive communication systems", Proc IFAC
FeT 2007, Toulouse, France, November 7-9, 2007.
[9] R. Kaiser, D. Zöbel, “Quantitative Analysis and Systematic Parametrization of a
Two-Level Real-Time Scheduler”, paper and slides at IEEE ETFA’2009.
[10] P. Leteinturier, “Next Generation Powertrain Microcontrollers”, International
Automotive Electronics Congress, November 2007.
[11] K. Koscher et al, “Experimental Security Analysis of a Modern Automobile”,
IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2010.
[12] AUTOSAR, “Specification of Timing Extensions”, Release 4.0 Rev 2, 2010.


Questions / feedback ?

Please get in touch at :
nicolas.navet@inria.fr


Automotive communication systems: from dependability to security

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Automotive communication systems: from dependability to security (20)

More from RealTime-at-Work (RTaW) (17)

Recently uploaded (20)

Automotive communication systems: from dependability to security