2018
DOI: 10.1109/access.2018.2826522
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Analytical and Experimental Performance Evaluations of CAN-FD Bus

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…• It incurs lower runtime overhead, since the payload does not need to be decoded, which is important for resource-constrained in-vehicle systems; • It is independent of the message format/payload length, hence, is applicable to both the classic CAN and the more recent higher-bandwidth CAN bus stands without change, e.g., CAN-FD with payload size of 64 Bytes [16] and CAN-XL with up to 2,048 Bytes [37]. The larger payload size, especially for CAN-XL, may render many current payload-based methods ineffective, since the large payload field may overwhelm the CAN ID field in the input feature space, so it may be necessary to reduce the feature dimension by feature engineering.…”
Section: Discussion On Feature Selection: Can Id or Payloadmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…• It incurs lower runtime overhead, since the payload does not need to be decoded, which is important for resource-constrained in-vehicle systems; • It is independent of the message format/payload length, hence, is applicable to both the classic CAN and the more recent higher-bandwidth CAN bus stands without change, e.g., CAN-FD with payload size of 64 Bytes [16] and CAN-XL with up to 2,048 Bytes [37]. The larger payload size, especially for CAN-XL, may render many current payload-based methods ineffective, since the large payload field may overwhelm the CAN ID field in the input feature space, so it may be necessary to reduce the feature dimension by feature engineering.…”
Section: Discussion On Feature Selection: Can Id or Payloadmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This approach is constrained by the limited computing power of ECUs and the small payload size of CAN messages (8 Bytes). Proposed solutions include: adding hardware coprocessors to offload computation-intensive cryptographic algorithms from the ECU [31]; selectively adding coprocessors to a partial set of ECUs to meet timing constraints while minimizing cost [21]; truncating the MAC to reduce its length and performing successful authentication of several consecutively received messages [21,47]; dynamically adjusting the MAC size to maximize it while meeting timing constraints [54]; security-aware obfuscated priority assignment for CAN with Flexible Data-rate (CAN-FD) [16,53], and others. Despite these research advances, MA on the CAN bus is not yet widely adopted in the automotive industry due to its high cost or high complexity.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such systems made their debut in the 1960s, having inherited several characteristics along the way, many of which survive up to this day. In its simplest form, SCADA systems, as illustrated in Figure 1, may include the following components: Such components are linked together by means of protocols and technologies, such as CAN Bus [17], RS-485 [16], Industrial Ethernet [18], COTS Ethernet or TCP/IP. Communications between the Master station and the PLC/RTUs is supported by using SCADA-specific protocols, like Modbus over TCP/IP [19], IEC 60870-5-104 (IEC 104) [20] or the This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.…”
Section: B Scada Systemsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We consider that this cost is limited in our context, since the analysis of real-life critical systems shows A:11 [Pagetti et al 2014], it does not exceed 3 flits of 32 bits. The payload size of controller area network (CAN) which is a widely-used bus protocol in automotive distributed embedded systems, does not exceed 8 bytes [Andrade et al 2018]. Finally, in the ARINC429 protocol which is an open standard and one of the most adopted protocol in the aeronautical industry, the payload size does not exceed 24 bits [Santos and d'Amore 2018].…”
Section: N+1 Virtual Channelsmentioning
confidence: 99%