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

RansomExx Upgrades to Rust

IBM Security X-Force Threat Researchers have discovered a new variant of the RansomExx ransomware that has been rewritten in the Rust programming language, joining a growing trend of ransomware developers switching to the language. Malware written in Rust often benefits from lower AV detection rates (compared to those written in more common languages) and this may have been the primary reason to use the language. For example, the sample analyzed in this report was not detected as malicious in the…

Moving at the Speed of Business — Challenging Our Assumptions About Cybersecurity

The traditional narrative for cybersecurity has been about limited visibility and operational constraints — not business opportunities. These conversations are grounded in various assumptions, such as limited budgets, scarce resources, skills being at a premium, the attack surface growing, and increased complexity. For years, conventional thinking has been that cybersecurity costs a lot, takes a long time, and is more of a cost center than an enabler of growth. In our upcoming paper, Prosper in the Cyber Economy, published by…

Overcoming Distrust in Information Sharing: What More is There to Do?

As cyber threats increase in frequency and intensity worldwide, it has never been more crucial for governments and private organizations to work together to identify, analyze and combat attacks. Yet while the federal government has strongly supported this model of private-public information sharing, the reality is less than impressive. Many companies feel that intel sharing is too one-sided, as businesses share as much threat intel as governments want but receive very little in return. The question is, have government entities…

Tackling Today’s Attacks and Preparing for Tomorrow’s Threats: A Leader in 2022 Gartner® Magic Quadrant™ for SIEM

Get the latest on IBM Security QRadar SIEM, recognized as a Leader in the 2022 Gartner Magic Quadrant. As I talk to security leaders across the globe, four main themes teams constantly struggle to keep up with are: The ever-evolving and increasing threat landscape Access to and retaining skilled security analysts Learning and managing increasingly complex IT environments and subsequent security tooling The ability to act on the insights from their security tools including security information and event management software…