Two-Point Voltage Fingerprinting: Increasing Detectability of ECU Masquerading Attacks

Automotive systems continuously increase their dependency on Electronic Control Units (ECUs) and become more interconnected to improve safety, comfort and Advanced Driving Assistance Systems (ADAS) functions to passengers and drivers. As a consequence of that trend, there is an expanding attack surface which may potentially expose vehicle’s critical functions to cyberattacks. It is possible for an adversary to reach the underlying Control Area Network (CAN) through a compromised node or external-facing network interface, and launch masquerading attacks that can compromise road and passenger safety. Due to lack of native authentication in the CAN protocol, an approach to detect masquerading attacks is to use ECU voltage fingerprinting schemes to verify that the messages are sent by authentic ECUs. Though effective against simple masquerading attacks, prior work is unable to detect attackers such as hardware Trojans, which can mimic ECU voltages in addition to spoofing messages. We introduce a novel Two-point ECU Fingerprinting scheme and demonstrate efficacy in a controlled lab setting and on a moving vehicle. Our results show that our proposed twopoint fingerprinting scheme is capable of an overall F1-score over 99.4%. The proposed approach raises the bar for attackers trying to compromise automotive security both remotely and physically, therefore improving security and safety of autonomous vehicles.

[1]  Axel Poschmann,et al.  Hardware trojan design and detection: a practical evaluation , 2013, WESS '13.

[2]  Jana Dittmann,et al.  Security threats to automotive CAN networks - Practical examples and selected short-term countermeasures , 2008, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[3]  Huy Kang Kim,et al.  Intrusion detection system based on the analysis of time intervals of CAN messages for in-vehicle network , 2016, 2016 International Conference on Information Networking (ICOIN).

[4]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.

[5]  Matti Valovirta,et al.  Experimental Security Analysis of a Modern Automobile , 2011 .

[6]  Mohammad Samie,et al.  Hardware trojan enabled denial of service attack on CAN bus , 2018 .

[7]  Qiang Liu,et al.  A survey of hardware Trojan threat and defense , 2016, Integr..

[8]  Stacy J. Prowell,et al.  Modeling inter-signal arrival times for accurate detection of CAN bus signal injection attacks: a data-driven approach to in-vehicle intrusion detection , 2017, CISRC.

[9]  Gaël Varoquaux,et al.  Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python , 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[10]  Bogdan Groza,et al.  Source Identification Using Signal Characteristics in Controller Area Networks , 2014, IEEE Signal Processing Letters.

[11]  Je-Won Kang,et al.  Intrusion Detection System Using Deep Neural Network for In-Vehicle Network Security , 2016, PloS one.

[12]  Naim Asaj,et al.  Entropy-based anomaly detection for in-vehicle networks , 2011, 2011 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV).

[13]  Hovav Shacham,et al.  Comprehensive Experimental Analyses of Automotive Attack Surfaces , 2011, USENIX Security Symposium.

[14]  Kang G. Shin,et al.  Viden: Attacker Identification on In-Vehicle Networks , 2017, CCS.

[15]  Kang G. Shin,et al.  Fingerprinting Electronic Control Units for Vehicle Intrusion Detection , 2016, USENIX Security Symposium.

[16]  Dong Hoon Lee,et al.  Identifying ECUs Using Inimitable Characteristics of Signals in Controller Area Networks , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology.