skip to main content
10.1145/3366030.3366070acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiiwasConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Ontology-Based Model for Automotive Security Verification and Validation

Authors Info & Claims
Published:22 February 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Modern automobiles are considered semi-autonomous vehicles regarding new adaptive technologies. New cars consist of a vast number of electronic units for managing and controlling the functional safety in a vehicle. In the vehicular industry, safety and security are considered two sides for the same coin. Therefore, improving functional safety in the vehicular industry is essential to protect the vehicle from different attack scenarios. This work introduces an ontology-based model for security verification and validation in the vehicular domain. The model performs a series of logical quires and inference rules to ensure that the security requirements are fulfilled. It endeavors to enhance the current security state of a vehicle by selecting additional security requirements that can handle existence security weaknesses and meet the actual security goal.

References

  1. IEC 62443-3-1(TR): Industrial communication networks - network and system security - part 3-1: Security technologies for industrial automation and control systems. Technical Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. IEC 62443-3-3: Industrial communication networks - network and system security - part 3-3: System security requirements and security levels.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. ISO 15408, information technology - security techniques - evaluation criteria for IT security (common criteria).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Abdelkader Magdy Shaaban, Christoph Schmittner, A. B. The design of a divide-and-conquer security framework for autonomous vehicles.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. AIT. Threatget - threat analysis and risk management. https://www.threatget.com, 2019. Acessed: 2019-10-20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Chakraborty, S., Al Faruque, M. A., Chang, W., Goswami, D., Wolf, M., and Zhu, Q. Automotive cyber-physical systems: A tutorial introduction. IEEE Design & Test 33, 4 (2016), 92--108.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Ekclhart, A., Fenz, S., Goluch, G., and Weippl, E. Ontological mapping of common criteria's security assurance requirements. In IFIP International Information Security Conference (2007), Springer, pp. 85--95.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Ekelhart, A., Fenz, S., Klemen, M., and Weippl, E. Security ontologies: Improving quantitative risk analysis. In 2007 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07) (2007), IEEE, pp. 156a-156a.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. El Sadany, M., Schmittner, C., and Kastner, W. Assuring compliance with protection profiles with threatget. In International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security (2019), Springer, pp. 62--73.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Glas, B., Gramm, J., and Vembar, P. Towards an information security framework for the automotive domain. Automotive-Safety & Security 2014 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Hernan, S., Lambert, S., Ostwald, T., and Shostack, A. Threat modeling-uncover security design flaws using the stride approach. MSDN Magazine-Louisville (2006), 68--75.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. KASTEBO, M., and NORDH, V. Model-based security testing in automotive industry. Master's thesis, Department of Computer Science and Engineering -UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Lévy-Bencheton, C., Marinos, L., Mattioli, R., King, T., Dietzel, C., and Stumpf, J. Threat landscape and good practice guide for internet infrastructure. EU Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA) (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Ma, Z., and Schmittner, C. Threat modeling for automotive security analysis.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Macher, G., Armengaud, E., Brenner, E., and Kreiner, C. Threat and risk assessment methodologies in the automotive domain. Procedia computer science 83 (2016), 1288--1294.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. McAfee. Automotive security best practices. Tech. rep., McAfee, June 2016. Recommendations for security and privacy in the era of the next-generation car.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Member, W. Swrl: A semantic web rule language. https://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL/, 2004. Accessed: 2019-10-18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Miller, C., and Valasek, C. Adventures in automotive networks and control units. Def Con 21 (2013), 260--264.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Miller, C., and Valasek, C. A survey of remote automotive attack surfaces. black hat USA 2014 (2014), 94.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Mozzaquatro, B. A., Jardim-Goncalves, R., and Agostinho, C. Towards a reference ontology for security in the internet of things. In Measurements & Networking (M&N), 2015 IEEE International Workshop on (2015), IEEE, pp. 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. MUTSCHLER, A. S. Data storage issues grow for cars. https://semiengineering.com/data-issues-grow-for-cars/. Accessed: 19-10-2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. NASA. Your device has more computing power. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/multimedia/vgrmemory.html. Accessed: 18.10.2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. NHTSA. Vehicle cybersecurity. https://www.nhtsa.gov/technologyinnovation/vehicle-cybersecurity. Accessed: 17.10.2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. O'Connor, M.J., and Das, A. K. Sqwrl: A query language for owl. In OWLED (2009), vol. 529.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Ramesh, R., Prabu, M., Magibalan, S., and Senthilkumar, P. Hazard identification and risk assessment in automotive industry. International Journal of ChemTech Research 10, 4 (2017), 352--358.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Recommendation, W. Sparql query language for rdf. https://www.w3.org/TR/rdfsparql-query/. Accessed: 19.10.2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Schikuta, E., Magdy, a., Haq, I. U., Mohamed, A. B., Pittl, B., and Mach, W. Searching the sky for neural networks. In International Work-Conference on Artificial Neural Networks (2017), Springer, pp. 167--178.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Schikuta, E., Magdy, A., and Mohamed, A. B. A framework for ontology based management of neural network as a service. In International Conference on Neural Information Processing (2016), Springer, pp. 236--243.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Schmittner, C., Gruber, T., Puschner, P., and Schoitsch, E. Security application of failure mode and effect analysis (fmea). In International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security (2014), Springer, pp. 310--325.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Schmittner, C., Latzenhofer, M., Abdelkader Magdy, S., and Hofer, M. A proposal for a comprehensive automotive cybersecurity reference architecture. In VEHICULAR 2018, The Seventh International Conference on Advances in Vehicular Systems, Technologies and Applications (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Schoitsch, E., Schmittner, C., Ma, Z., and Gruber, T. The need for safety and cyber-security co-engineering and standardization for highly automated automotive vehicles. In Advanced Microsystems for Automotive Applications 2015. Springer, 2016, pp. 251--261.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Sommer, F., Dürrwang, J., and Kriesten, R. Survey and classification of automotive security attacks. Information 10, 4 (2019), 148.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Souag, A., Salinesi, C., Mazo, R., and Comyn-Wattiau, I. A security ontology for security requirements elicitation. In International symposium on engineering secure software and systems (2015), Springer, pp. 157--177.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Strobl, S., Hofbauer, D., Schmittner, C., Maksuti, S., Tauber, M., and Delsing, J. Connected cars---threats, vulnerabilities and their impact. In 2018 IEEE Industrial Cyber-Physical Systems (ICPS) (2018), IEEE, pp. 375--380.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Ontology-Based Model for Automotive Security Verification and Validation

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      iiWAS2019: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications & Services
      December 2019
      709 pages

      Copyright © 2019 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 22 February 2020

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader