Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security 2016
DOI: 10.1145/2976749.2978302
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Error Handling of In-vehicle Networks Makes Them Vulnerable

Abstract: Contemporary vehicles are getting equipped with an increasing number of Electronic Control Units (ECUs) and wireless connectivities. Although these have enhanced vehicle safety and efficiency, they are accompanied with new vulnerabilities. In this paper, we unveil a new important vulnerability applicable to several in-vehicle networks including Control Area Network (CAN), the de facto standard in-vehicle network protocol. Specifically, we propose a new type of Denial-of-Service (DoS), called the busoff attack,… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
149
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 198 publications
(151 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
1
149
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, the authors in [7] point out that using simple methods can disrupt the operation of a car and even disable the vehicle. Further, the authors in [8] illustrate a case study, where a Denial-of-Service (DoS) attack can be launched to compromise the CAN bus and the functionalities dependent on the bus. This issue is even more emphasized with the rise of vehicle autonomy, because the autonomy will exacerbate the consequences of attacks.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, the authors in [7] point out that using simple methods can disrupt the operation of a car and even disable the vehicle. Further, the authors in [8] illustrate a case study, where a Denial-of-Service (DoS) attack can be launched to compromise the CAN bus and the functionalities dependent on the bus. This issue is even more emphasized with the rise of vehicle autonomy, because the autonomy will exacerbate the consequences of attacks.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to the attackers' capabilities, they can be considered as either strong attackers or weak attackers [15]. Strong attackers are those who can fully compromise an ECU and gain control of its software and memory.…”
Section: Attack Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, a weak attacker can only stop the weakly compromised ECU or eavesdrop on the CAN bus. In this paper, we focus on the existing attack cases that have been implemented to severely impair the in-vehicle security [7], [13], [15]. These attacks are composed of the following four basic attack models: • Replay Attack.…”
Section: Attack Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Of the research to build intrusion detection systems (IDSs) for the currently-adopted CAN systems, there is a natural trichotomy: 1) Rule-based IDS: Early works involve rule-based detectors, an analogue of signature-based detection in enterprise security. These can detect simple signal-injection attacks, (sophisticated but very limited) bus-off attacks (see Cho et al [12]), and potentially ECU reprogramming [13][14][15]. 2) Frequency-based IDS: Important CAN messages are sent redundantly with fixed frequency.…”
Section: A Related Can Ids Workmentioning
confidence: 99%