Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #21444

Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway

Show all headers | View raw

On 7/22/2015 4:42 PM, Ian Yellowley wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 14:22:18 UTC-8, Don Y  wrote:
>> On 7/21/2015 2:35 PM, Ian Yellowley wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder why there should be any connection between these networks, I can
>>> see consolidation of steering, suspension and braking info for stability but
>>> the rest??? There would seem to be huge differences in required bandwidth,
>>> latency and reliability so is there a cost saving? I was involved in the
>>> design of steer by wire systems many years ago and the extent to which we
>>> went to provide reliability, multiple layers of redundancy and isolation
>>> from other systems were fairly extreme. This was in a University lab...I
>>> would expect at least that from a commercial product.
>>
>>   From the (limited) exposure I've had to automotive control systems,
>> there doesn't seem to be a cohesive, integrated "system design"
>> at work.  Instead, there are all these little islands of control
>> that are hacked together and "integrated" after-the-fact.
>>
>> [Often, individual subsystems are farmed out to third parties.  E.g.,
>> you can bet that the auto manufacturer doesn't design the navigation
>> system, entertainment system, security system -- perhaps not even the
>> engine control system itself!]
>>
>> E.g., why would the ECU need to talk to anything other than the *engine*?
>> "Ah, but we can tell the air conditioning compressor to disengage when
>> we are calling for extra demand from the engine!  So, let the *engine*
>> tell the air conditioner to 'pause' -- instead of having some higher
>> level of integration impose those rules.  Likewise, let the tranny
>> controller tell the door locks to engage when the vehicle is put in
>> gear (or, when the wheels attain a certain speed).
>>
>> Too many protection domains routinely crossed due to the method of
>> implementation.  So, how can you ever hope to retrofit "security"
>> and "reliability" after-the-fact?  It's almost inherent in CAN that you
>> have a somewhat "flat" architecture.
>
> Yes there are possibilities to do "neat things" at the expense of overall security. This stuff worried me enough to go back to the literature. The following paper seems to address a lot of the issues as well as explaining the typical method of interfacing between the various networks and the weaknesses of these approaches.
>
> http://www.autosec.org/pubs/cars-oakland2010.pdf

I think it would be very easy to provide security between the safety 
functions and the rest of the automotive systems.  Use separate buses. 
There are *very* few military systems that support multiple levels of 
security on the same hardware... for a good reason.  They don't feel 
software can provide the level of security required unless it is very 
carefully implemented which is something they don't feel they can do for 
networking in general.  I know of one system  that was approved for 
multiple levels of security over a common network, but that took several 
years to develop and was a closed system.

Why can't they just use a separate CAN bus for the safety related gear 
from the bus they use for the infotainment and climate controls, etc? 
The outside world could connect to the core automotive functions by 
wires or if wireless is needed they can use a separate wireless 
connection with high security or at least separate the two levels of 
security with a robust firewall.

-- 

Rick

Back to comp.arch.embedded | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Rob Gaddi <rgaddi@technologyhighland.invalid> - 2015-07-21 19:28 +0000
  Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2015-07-21 13:00 -0700
    Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2015-07-21 21:49 +1000
      Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2015-07-21 18:55 -0700
    Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> - 2015-07-21 20:37 -0400
      Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2015-07-21 18:47 -0700
  Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Ian Yellowley <iany99@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 14:35 -0700
    Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2015-07-21 15:22 -0700
      Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Ian Yellowley <iany99@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 13:42 -0700
        Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 18:48 -0400
          Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway lasselangwadtchristensen@gmail.com - 2015-07-22 17:33 -0700
            Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Rob Gaddi <rgaddi@technologyhighland.invalid> - 2015-07-24 16:51 +0000
              Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-24 10:23 -0700
                Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2015-07-24 11:22 -0700
                Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2015-07-24 21:49 +0200
              Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway hamilton <hamilton@nothere.com> - 2015-07-24 12:45 -0600
        Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2015-07-22 16:59 -0700
          Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 21:30 -0400
      Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway lasselangwadtchristensen@gmail.com - 2015-07-22 15:30 -0700
        Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 18:53 -0400
        Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2015-07-22 19:49 -0700
          Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 23:20 -0400
            Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-23 03:49 -0500
              Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2015-07-23 03:26 -0700
                Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 12:09 -0400
                Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2015-07-23 21:38 +0200
                Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 16:36 -0400
                Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2015-07-23 23:56 +0200
                Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 13:25 -0400
              Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 11:32 -0400
  Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Ed Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 20:00 -0700
  Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 00:57 -0400
  Re: Semi-OT: Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway Mel Wilson <mwilson@the-wire.com> - 2015-07-26 15:06 +0000

csiph-web