Rhea C. Rinaldo
ABSTRACT
The competition to invent affordable, fully functional, safe and secure vehicles is driven by multiple challenges. One of the main challenge is the safety and security verification of the developed autonomous system structures. While there are many implemented strategies to ensure the safe and secure driving mission, there are only a few methods that can assess the resulting complex system structure realistically and within a reasonable time-span under consideration of the safety and security impacts. On the one hand, there are analytical approaches, e.g. Markov methods, which are often suffering from restrictive assumptions leading to worst-case assessments. As a result costly additional safety and security elements must be included to achieve the desired level of safety and security. On the other hand, numerical methods, such as Monte-Carlo simulation, can consider complex system structures and strategies but are very time-consuming, because every change of the system must be assessed by a new simulation. Consequential, the development times are increasing exponentially with every system structure update. Therefore, new approaches must be invented to support a time-efficient and realistic assessment of autonomous system structures, which includes the consideration of the intertwined dependencies and effects of safety and security. In this paper a hybrid model is presented, that combines the analytical and numerical approach to achieve a realistic assessment, while keeping the time effort reasonable. The hybrid model especially acknowledges and models the relation between safety and security, which does have a significant influence for fully autonomous vehicles.
- Simon Burton, Jürgen Likkei, Priyamvadha Vembar, and Marko Wolf. 2012. Automotive Functional Safety = Safety + Security. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Security of Internet of Things (Kollam, India) (SecurIT ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 150–159. https://doi.org/10.1145/2490428.2490449Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Igor Nai Fovino, Marcelo Masera, and Alessio De Cian. 2009. Integrating cyber attacks within fault trees. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 94 (2009), 1394––1402.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Benjamin Glas, Carsten Gebauer, Jochen Hänger, Andreas Heyl, Jürgen Klarmann, Stefan Kriso, Priyamvadha Vembar, and Philipp Wörz. 2015. Automotive safety and security integration challenges. In Automotive - Safety & Security 2014. GI e.V., Stuttgart, Germany, 13–28.Google Scholar
- Johannes Heinrich, Julian-Steffen Müller, Fabian Plinke, Timo Frederik Horeis, and Hendrik Decke. 2019. State-based Availability Analysis of hard- and Software Architectures using Monte Carlo Simulation under Consideration of Different Failure modes and Degradation Models. In Proceedings of the 29th European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL). Research Publishing Services, Hannover, Germany, 1970–1978.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wang Hongzhou and Hoang Pham. 2006. Reliability and Optimal Maintenance. Springer London, London.Google Scholar
- Timo Horeis. 2019. Modellerstellung zur Berechnung von Zuverlässigkeitskenngrößen dynamischer Hard- und Softwarearchitekturen. Master’s thesis. Hamburg University of Technology, Am Schwarzenberg-Campus 1, 21073 Hamburg.Google Scholar
- SAE International. 2018. Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles. Standard. SAE International.Google Scholar
- R. Kumar and Alazel Jackson. 2009. Accurate reliability modeling using Markov Analysis with non-constant hazard rates. In 2009 IEEE Aerospace conference. IEEE, Montana, USA, 1 – 7.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Kwiatkowska, G. Norman, and D. Parker. 2011. PRISM 4.0: Verification of Probabilistic Real-time Systems. In 23rd International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV’11)(LNCS), Vol. 6806. Springer, Cliff Lodge, Snowbird, Utah, USA, 585–591.Google Scholar
- Georg Macher, Andrea Höller, Harald Sporer, Eric Armengaud, and Christian Kreiner. 2015. A Combined Safety-Hazards and Security-Threat Analysis Method for Automotive Systems. In Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. Springer International Publishing, Florence, Italy, 237–250.Google Scholar
- R. Manian, J. Bechta Dugan, D. Coppit, and K. J. Sullivan. 1998. Combining various solution techniques for dynamic fault tree analysis of computer systems. In Proceedings Third IEEE International High-Assurance Systems Engineering Symposium (Cat. No.98EX231). IEEE, Washington, DC, USA, 21–28.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Adamantios Mettas and Manolis Savva. 2001. System reliability analysis: the advantages of using analytical methods to analyze non-repairable systems. In Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium. 2001 Proceedings. International Symposium on Product Quality and Integrity (Cat. No.01CH37179). IEEE, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 80–85.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Timo Rieker. 2018. Reliability modelling of technical systems with stochastic net methods. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Stuttgart, Keplerstraße 7, 70174 Stuttgart.Google Scholar
- Rhea Rinaldo and Dieter Hutter. 2020. Integrated Analysis of Safety and Security Hazards in Automotive Systems. In ESORICS 2020 workshops CyberICPS, SECPRE, ADIoT(Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Sokratis K. Katsikas and Frederic Cuppens (Eds.), Vol. 12501. Springer, Guildford, UK.Google Scholar
- Robert Sargent. 1994. A historical view of hybrid simulation/analytic models.. In Proceedings of Winter Simulation Conference. IEEE, Lake Buena Vista, FL, USA, 383–386. https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC.1994.717204Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Srinivasa Rao and V.N.A. Naikan. 2014. Reliability analysis of repairable systems using system dynamics modeling and simulation. Journal of Industrial Engineering International 10 (2014), 69.Google ScholarCross Ref
- The Mathworks, Inc. 2020. MATLAB version 9.8.0.1417392 (R2020a) Update 4. The Mathworks, Inc., Natick, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
- Enrico Zio. 2013. The Monte Carlo Simulation Method for System Reliability and Risk Analysis. Springer London, London.Google Scholar
- Miroslav Zizka. 2005. The Analytic Approach Vs. The Simulation Approach to Determining Safety Stock. Problems and Perspectives in Management 3 (01 2005).Google Scholar
Recommendations
System safety in hybrid and electric vehicles
ASSC '11: Proceedings of the Australian System Safety Conference - Volume 133Road vehicles have an increasing reliance on electronic systems to control their functionality and to deliver the feature and attribute demands made by manufacturers, legislators and consumers. This trend is particularly evident in the new generation of ...
Safe Deep Neural Network-Driven Autonomous Vehicles Using Software Safety Cages
Intelligent Data Engineering and Automated Learning – IDEAL 2019AbstractDeep learning is a promising class of techniques for controlling an autonomous vehicle. However, functional safety validation is seen as a critical issue for these systems due to the lack of transparency in deep neural networks and the safety-...
A Dynamic Threat Prevention Framework for Autonomous Vehicle Networks based on Ruin-theoretic Security Risk Assessment
In recent years, Autonomous Vehicle Networks (AVNs) have gained significant attention for their potential to make transportation safer and more efficient. These networks rely on Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communication to exchange critical information, such ...
Comments