With connected cars becoming more common, the industry has more standards and options when it comes to autonomous vehicle security. 

Adam Laurie, known in hacker circles as Major Malfunction, leads X-Force Red’s automotive testing practice. He has seen firsthand how easy it can be to compromise an autonomous vehicle if strong security processes and controls are not in place. He recently found an opening in the keyless entry device of his own vehicle, then leveraged it to unlock every vehicle of the same model in a parking lot. The project was for research purposes as opposed to a real attack, but it did show how easy it could be for an attacker to purchase a vehicle, reverse engineer it to find flaws and then exploit those flaws to compromise every other vehicle of that same model.

Laurie and IBM’s Global Solution Leader for Connected Vehicle Security, Giuseppe Serio, recently presented a webinar about the regulation. They discussed the nuts and bolts of the mandate, the timeline for compliance and what automakers should be doing now to begin the compliance process. 

Watch the recording

Industry Warned About Autonomous Vehicle Security 

If you haven’t already taken a ride inside an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle, chances are you will in the near future. The autonomous vehicle market is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 68.94% from 2025 to 2030. This growth has many positives, including more lives saved.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 94% of serious crashes are due to human error. As the NHTSA also points out, autonomous vehicles can cut down on traffic congestion and carbon dioxide emissions.

With the benefits comes one downside — autonomous vehicle security concerns. As with most things that connect to the internet, risks can arise, and the components of an autonomous vehicle may have inherent openings. Even if the vehicle was designed securely, new problems may surface once it is connected.

In 2019, the FBI issued a warning about autonomous vehicle cybersecurity, with “ransomware infections, data breaches leading to the exfiltration of personally identifiable information and unauthorized access to enterprise networks” likely in the future. 

Dude, Where’s My (Autonomous) Car?

One of the main challenges with securing autonomous vehicles is protecting its linked applications in jailbroken phones or laptops, Laurie says. If an attacker were to jailbreak their own phone, they could see the application code while it was running, which includes how it talks to the backend server. They could then retrieve the application’s hidden data, such as credentials, and take full control of the code, vehicle and connected infrastructure.

The vehicle itself can also be a prime target for attackers. Tools to launch refined attacks against embedded hardware and controller area network (CAN bus) systems are not difficult to find. Attackers could simply purchase or rent a vehicle, find its common flaws such as a backdoor in a module or network, and compromise every other vehicle in the same fleet.

Who is Responsible for Autonomous Vehicle Security? 

First-party automakers are not the only ones who should be prioritizing digital safety. Third-party suppliers can also be at risk of a compromise. Attackers could find and exploit a vulnerability in a manufacturer’s network. Even a flaw unrelated to the vehicle operations unit could allow them to pivot onto a supplier’s network, Laurie says.

That is why it is critical that the entire autonomous vehicle infrastructure — every server, network, device, application, vehicle and component  — must be protected. Just one poorly configured server on the manufacturer’s or supplier’s end can lead to an attacker breaking into the server, pivoting onto the backend network and gaining control of the connected application and therefore the vehicle. 

New Mandate Aims To Protect Drivers and Vehicles

A new United Nations regulation, UNECE WP29, should help automotive manufacturers and suppliers build security controls and processes into the autonomous vehicle lifecycle. It lists common threats, risks and attack methods. It also covers threat reduction processes and controls that automakers in countries covered by the U.N. mandate must implement to protect against the highlighted attacks. These entities must also attest that their third-party suppliers are adhering to the mandate.

Another beneficial aspect is that compliance is required for all stages of the vehicle’s life — development, production and post-production. Automakers have to renew their certificate of compliance every three years. Even if they stop producing autonomous vehicles, if those vehicles are still on the market, they must comply. If they don’t, they will not be allowed to sell vehicles.

The regulation states certain countries in the European Union and the Asia-Pacific region must comply. However, any entity which sells vehicles to those regions must also comply.

According to Laurie, the mandate does a good job addressing the main threats and risks. If automakers test each threat listed, they should vastly reduce their risk of a compromise. Addressing these potential problems through all stages of manufacturing helps create a baseline of autonomous vehicle cybersecurity.

To learn more about X-Force Red Automotive Testing, visit: www.ibm.com/security/services/automotive-testing.

More from Intelligence & Analytics

Email campaigns leverage updated DBatLoader to deliver RATs, stealers

11 min read - IBM X-Force has identified new capabilities in DBatLoader malware samples delivered in recent email campaigns, signaling a heightened risk of infection from commodity malware families associated with DBatLoader activity. X-Force has observed nearly two dozen email campaigns since late June leveraging the updated DBatLoader loader to deliver payloads such as Remcos, Warzone, Formbook, and AgentTesla. DBatLoader malware has been used since 2020 by cybercriminals to install commodity malware remote access Trojans (RATs) and infostealers, primarily via malicious spam (malspam). DBatLoader…

New Hive0117 phishing campaign imitates conscription summons to deliver DarkWatchman malware

8 min read - IBM X-Force uncovered a new phishing campaign likely conducted by Hive0117 delivering the fileless malware DarkWatchman, directed at individuals associated with major energy, finance, transport, and software security industries based in Russia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, and Estonia. DarkWatchman malware is capable of keylogging, collecting system information, and deploying secondary payloads. Imitating official correspondence from the Russian government in phishing emails aligns with previous Hive0117 campaigns delivering DarkWatchman malware, and shows a possible significant effort to induce a sense of urgency as…

X-Force releases detection & response framework for managed file transfer software

5 min read - How AI can help defenders scale detection guidance for enterprise software tools If we look back at mass exploitation events that shook the security industry like Log4j, Atlassian, and Microsoft Exchange when these solutions were actively being exploited by attackers, the exploits may have been associated with a different CVE, but the detection and response guidance being released by the various security vendors had many similarities (e.g., Log4shell vs. Log4j2 vs. MOVEit vs. Spring4Shell vs. Microsoft Exchange vs. ProxyShell vs.…

Unmasking hypnotized AI: The hidden risks of large language models

11 min read - The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) is redefining how cybersecurity teams and cybercriminals operate. As security teams leverage the capabilities of generative AI to bring more simplicity and speed into their operations, it's important we recognize that cybercriminals are seeking the same benefits. LLMs are a new type of attack surface poised to make certain types of attacks easier, more cost-effective, and even more persistent. In a bid to explore security risks posed by these innovations, we attempted to…