A First Simulation of Attacks in the Automotive Network Communications Protocol FlexRay
The automotive industry has over the last decade gradually replaced mechanical parts with electronics and software solutions. Modern vehicles contain a number of electronic control units (ECUs), which are connected in an in-vehicle network and provide various vehicle functionalities. The next generation automotive network communications protocol FlexRay has been developed to meet the future demands of automotive networking and can replace the existing CAN protocol. Moreover, the upcoming trend of ubiquitous vehicle communication in terms of vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication introduces an entry point to the previously isolated in-vehicle network. Consequently, the in-vehicle network is exposed to a whole new range of threats known as cyber attacks. In this paper, we have analyzed the FlexRay protocol specification and evaluated the ability of the FlexRay protocol to withstand cyber attacks. We have simulated a set of plausible attacks targeting the ECUs on a FlexRay bus. From the results, we conclude that the FlexRay protocol lacks sufficient protection against the executed attacks, and we therefore argue that future versions of the specification should include security protection.
KeywordsAutomotive vehicle FlexRay security attacks simulation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Miucic, R., Mahmud, S.M.: Wireless Multicasting for Remote Software Upload in Vehicles with Realistic Vehicle Movement. Technical report, Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202 USA (2005)Google Scholar
- 2.Wolf, M., Weimerskirch, A., Paar, C.: Security in Automotive Bus Systems. In: Workshop on Embedded IT-Security in Cars, Bochum, Germany (November 2004)Google Scholar
- 3.Hoppe, T., Dittman, J.: Sniffing/Replay Attacks on CAN Buses: A simulated attack on the electric window lift classified using an adapted CERT taxonomy. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Embedded Systems Security (WESS), Salzburg, Austria (2007)Google Scholar
- 4.Lang, A., Dittman, J., Kiltz, S., Hoppe, T.: Future Perspectives: The car and its IP-address - A potential safety and security risk assessment. In: The 26th International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability and Security (SAFECOMP), Nuremberg, Germany (2007)Google Scholar
- 5.Nilsson, D.K., Larson, U.E.: Simulated Attacks on CAN Buses: Vehicle virus. In: Proceedings of the Fifth IASTED Asian Conference on Communication Systems and Networks (ASIACSN) (2008)Google Scholar
- 6.EASIS. Embedded Security for Integrated Safety Applications (2006), http://www.car-to-car.org/fileadmin/dokumente/pdf/security_2006/sec_06_10_eyeman_easis_security.pdf
- 7.FlexRay Consortium. FlexRay Communications System Protocol Specification 2.1 Revision A (2005) (Visited August, 2007), http://www.softwareresearch.net/site/teaching/SS2007/ds/FlexRay-ProtocolSpecification_V2.1.revA.pdf
- 9.Perrig, A., Szewczyk, R., Wen, V., Culler, D.E., Tygar, J.D.: SPINS: Security protocols for sensor networks. In: Mobile Computing and Networking, pp. 189–199 (2001)Google Scholar
- 10.Karlof, C., Sastry, N., Wagner, D.: TinySec: A link layer security architecture for wireless sensor networks. In: SenSys 2004: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, Baltimore, November 2004, pp. 162–175 (2004)Google Scholar
- 11.Vector Informatik. CANoe and DENoe 7.0 (2007) (Visited December, 2007), http://www.vector-worldwide.com/vi_canoe_en.html