skip to main content
10.1145/3558482.3590192acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswisecConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

EMI-LiDAR: Uncovering Vulnerabilities of LiDAR Sensors in Autonomous Driving Setting using Electromagnetic Interference

Published:28 June 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) using LiDAR-based object detection systems are rapidly improving and becoming an increasingly viable method of transportation. While effective at perceiving the surrounding environment, these detection systems are shown to be vulnerable to attacks using lasers which can cause obstacle misclassifications or removal. These laser attacks, however, are challenging to perform, requiring precise aiming and accuracy. Our research exposes a new threat in the form of Intentional Electro-Magnetic-Interference (IEMI), which affects the time-of-flight (TOF) circuits that make up modern LiDARs. We show that these vulnerabilities can be exploited to force the AV Perception system to misdetect, misclassify objects, and perceive non-existent obstacles. We evaluate the vulnerability in three AV perception modules (PointPillars, PointRCNN, and Apollo) and show how the classification rate drops below 50%. We also analyze the impact of the IEMI injection on two fusion models (AVOD and Frustum-ConvNet) and in real-world scenarios. Finally, we discuss potential countermeasures and propose two strategies to detect signal injection.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

WiSec23-fp076.mkv

mkv

340.2 MB

References

  1. 2017. KITTI Vision Benchmark: 3D Object Detection. http://www.cvlibs.net/dat asets/kitti/eval_object.php?obj_benchmark=3d. Accessed: 2021-08--17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2019. FCC - Radio Frequency Safety. https://www.fcc.gov/general/radiofrequency- safety-0.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 2022. Navigant Research Names Waymo, Ford Autonomous Vehicles, Cruise, and Baidu the Leading Developers of Automated Driving Systems. https://ww w.businesswire.com/news/home/20200407005119/en/Navigant-Research- Names-Waymo-Ford-Autonomous-Vehicles-Cruise-and-Baidu-the-Leading- Developers-of-Automated-Driving-Systems. Accessed: 2023-01-08.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Mazen Abdelfattah, Kaiwen Yuan, Z. Jane Wang, and Rabab Ward. 2021. Adversarial Attacks on Camera-LiDAR Models for 3D Car Detection. In IROS 2021.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Ron Amadeo. 2017. Google's Waymo invests in LIDAR technology, cuts costs by 90 percent. Ars Technica, Jan 10 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Baidu Inc. 2017. Apollo. http://apollo.auto. Accessed: 2021--10-08.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Benewake. 2018. CE30-A Solid State Array LiDAR Specification. http://statics3 .seeedstudio.com/assets/file/bazaar/product/DE-LiDAR-CE30-A-Datasheet- V010-EN.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Yulong Cao, S. Hrushikesh Bhupathiraju, Pirouz Naghavi, Takeshi Sugawara, Z. Morley Mao, and Sara Rampazzi. 2023. You Can't See Me: Physical Removal Attacks on LiDAR-based Autonomous Vehicles Driving Frameworks. In USENIX Security 23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Yulong Cao, Jiaxiang Ma, Kevin Fu, Sara Rampazzi, and Morley Mao. 2021. Automated Tracking System For LiDAR Spoofing Attacks On Moving Targets. In AutoSec Workshop, 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Y. Cao, N. Wang, C. Xiao, D. Yang, J. Fang, R. Yang, Q. Chen, M. Liu, and B. Li. 2021. Invisible for both Camera and LiDAR: Security of Multi-Sensor Fusion based Perception in Autonomous Driving Under Physical-World Attacks. In IEEE S&P 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Yulong Cao, Chaowei Xiao, Benjamin Cyr, Yimeng Zhou, Won Park, Sara Rampazzi, Qi Alfred Chen, Kevin Fu, and Zhuoqing Morley Mao. 2019. Adversarial Sensor Attack on LiDAR-based Perception in Autonomous Driving. In CCS '19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Yulong Cao, Chaowei Xiao, Dawei Yang, Jing Fang, Ruigang Yang, Mingyan Liu, and Bo Li. 2019. Adversarial objects against LiDAR-based autonomous driving systems. arXiv:1907.05418 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. DDL Chung. 2000. Materials for electromagnetic interference shielding. Journal of Materials Engineering and performance 9 (2000), 350--354.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Cygbot. 2019. 2D 3D Dual Solid State TOF LiDAR. https://www.cygbot.com/2d- 3d-dual-solid-state-tof-lidar.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. F. Fiori and P.S. Crovetti. 2002. Nonlinear effects of radio-frequency interference in operational amplifiers. IEEE Trans. Circuits and Systems I 49, 3 (2002), 367--372. https://doi.org/10.1109/81.989173Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Ian J Goodfellow, Jonathon Shlens, and Christian Szegedy. 2014. Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6572 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. David S Hall. 2020. High definition lidar system. US Patent App. 15/700,543.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. David S Hall, Pieter J Kerstens, Yupeng Cui, Mathew Noel Rekow, and Stephen S Nestinger. 2018. LIDAR based 3-D imaging with varying pulse repetition. US Patent 10,048,374.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. R Spencer Hallyburton, Yupei Liu, Yulong Cao, Z Morley Mao, and Miroslav Pajic. 2022. Security analysis of camera-LiDAR fusion against black-box attacks on autonomous vehicles. In USENIX Security 22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K. 2019. APD Modules C12703 series. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Abdullah Hamdi, Sara Rojas, Ali Thabet, and Bernard Ghanem. 2020. AdvPC: Transferable adversarial perturbations on 3D point clouds. In ECCV 2020.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Mark Harris. 2017. GM Cruise Snaps Up Solid-State Lidar Pioneer Strobe Inc. IEEE Spectrum 11 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Zhongyuan Hau, T Kenneth, Soteris Demetriou, and Emil C Lupu. 2021. Object Removal Attacks on LiDAR-based 3D Object Detectors. In Workshop on Automotive and Autonomous Vehicle Security (AutoSec), Vol. 2021. 25.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Yuhang He, Wentao Yu, Jie Han, Xing Wei, Xiaopeng Hong, and Yihong Gong. 2021. Know your surroundings: Panoramic multi-object tracking by multimodality collaboration. In CVPR 2021. 2969--2980.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Chao Huang, Ruihui Li, Xianzhi Li, and Chi-Wing Fu. 2020. Non-local part-aware point cloud denoising. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.06631 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Velodyne LiDAR Inc. 2019. USER'S MANUAL AND PROGRAMMING GUIDE: VLP-16 Velodyne LiDAR Puck Rev E. https://velodynelidar.com/wp-content/up loads/2019/12/63--9243-Rev-E-VLP-16-User-Manual.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. J.Schesser. 2017. Sampling and Aliasing. https://web.njit.edu/~joelsd/Fundamen tals/coursework/BME310computingcw6.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Chaouki Kasmi and Jose Lopes Esteves. 2015. IEMI threats for information security: Remote command injection on modern smartphones. IEEE Trans. Electromagnetic Compatibility 57, 6 (2015), 1752--1755.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Mandeep Kaur, Shikha Kakar, and Danvir Mandal. 2011. Electromagnetic interference. In 2011 3rd International Conference on Electronics Computer Technology.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Jason Ku, Melissa Mozifian, Jungwook Lee, Ali Harakeh, and Steven LWaslander. 2018. Joint 3d proposal generation and object detection from view aggregation. In IROS 2018. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Denis Foo Kune, John Backes, Shane S Clark, Daniel Kramer, Matthew Reynolds, Kevin Fu, Yongdae Kim, and Wenyuan Xu. 2013. Ghost Talk: Mitigating EMI signal injection attacks against analog sensors. In IEEE S&P 2013. 145--159.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Alex H Lang, Sourabh Vora, Holger Caesar, Lubing Zhou, Jiong Yang, and Oscar Beijbom. 2019. Pointpillars: Fast Encoders for Object Detection from Point Clouds. In CVPR 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Timothy B. Lee. 2018. Why Spinning Lidar Sensors Might be Around for Another Decade. Ars Technica.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Xingyi Li, Wenxuan Wu, Xiaoli Z Fern, and Li Fuxin. 2021. The devils in the point clouds: Studying the robustness of point cloud convolutions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.07832 (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Shitong Luo andWei Hu. 2021. Score-based point cloud denoising. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Roberto Martin-Martin, Mihir Patel, Hamid Rezatofighi, Abhijeet Shenoi, Jun- Young Gwak, Eric Frankel, Amir Sadeghian, and Silvio Savarese. 2021. Jrdb: A dataset and benchmark of egocentric robot visual perception of humans in built environments. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Mini-Circuits. 2019. High Power Amplifier ZHL-5W-202-S. https://www.minici rcuits.com/pdfs/ZHL-5W-202-S.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Ehsan Nezhadarya, Ehsan Taghavi, Ryan Razani, Bingbing Liu, and Jun Luo. 2020. Adaptive hierarchical down-sampling for point cloud classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Seong Joon Oh, Bernt Schiele, and Mario Fritz. 2019. Towards reverse-engineering black-box neural networks. Explainable AI: Interpreting, Explaining and Visualizing Deep Learning (2019), 121--144.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Soham Pal, Yash Gupta, Aditya Shukla, Aditya Kanade, Shirish Shevade, and Vinod Ganapathy. 2019. A framework for the extraction of deep neural networks by leveraging public data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.09165 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Youngseok Park, Yunmok Son, Hocheol Shin, Dohyun Kim, and Yongdae Kim. 2016. This ain't your dose: Sensor spoofing attack on medical infusion pump. In WOOT 16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Scott Drew Pendleton, Hans Andersen, Xinxin Du, Xiaotong Shen, Malika Meghjani, You Hong Eng, Daniela Rus, and Marcelo H Ang Jr. 2017. Perception, planning, control, and coordination for autonomous vehicles. Machines 5, 1 (2017), 6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Francesca Pistilli, Giulia Fracastoro, Diego Valsesia, and Enrico Magli. 2020. Learning graph-convolutional representations for point cloud denoising. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23--28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XX 16. Springer, 103--118.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Milica Popovic, BD Popovic, and Z Popovic. 2006. Electromagnetic induction. Fundamentals of Engineering Electromagnetics (2006).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Charles R Qi, Hao Su, Kaichun Mo, and Leonidas J Guibas. 2017. Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3D classification and segmentation. In CVPR 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Rui Qian, Xin Lai, and Xirong Li. 2022. 3d object detection for autonomous driving: a survey. Pattern Recognition 130 (2022), 108796.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Ettus Research. 2012. USRP N200/N210 Networked Series. https://www.ettus.co m/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/07495_Ettus_N200--210_DS_Flyer_HR_1.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Ferran Reverter, Xiujun Li, and Gerard C M Meijer. 2006. Stability and accuracy of active shielding for grounded capacitive sensors. Measurement Science and Technology 17, 11 (sep 2006), 2884. https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/17/11/004Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. JM Roe. 1978. Integrated Circuit Electromagnetic Susceptibility Handbook. Phase III.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Sowmya Sankaran, Kalim Deshmukh, M. Basheer Ahamed, and S.K. Khadheer Pasha. 2018. Recent advances in electromagnetic interference shielding properties of metal and carbon filler reinforced flexible polymer composites: A review. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing (2018). https://doi.org/10 .1016/j.compositesa.2018.08.006Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Shanghai Slamtec Co., Ltd. 2019. RPLiDAR S2. https://www.slamtec.com/en/S2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Shaoshuai Shi, Xiaogang Wang, and Hongsheng Li. 2019. PointRCNN: 3D object proposal generation and detection from point cloud. In CVPR 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Giuseppe Schirripa Spagnolo, Adriana Postiglione, and Ilaria De Angelis. 2020. Simple equipment for teaching internal photoelectric effect. Physics Education (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Enrique Mario Spinelli and Ferran Reverter. 2009. On the stability of shield-driver circuits. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Stanford Vision and Learning Lab. 2017. JackRabbot. https://svl.stanford.edu/pro jects/jackrabbot/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Takeshi Sugawara, Benjamin Cyr, Sara Rampazzi, Daniel Genkin, and Kevin Fu. 2020. Light Commands: Laser-Based Audio Injection Attacks on Voice- Controllable Systems. In 29th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 20). USENIX Association, 2631--2648. https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixse curity20/presentation/sugawaraGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Jiachen Sun, Yulong Cao, Qi Alfred Chen, and Z Morley Mao. 2020. Towards robust LiDAR-based perception in autonomous driving: General black-box adversarial sensor attack and countermeasures. In USENIX Security 20. 877--894.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Christian Szegedy,Wojciech Zaremba, Ilya Sutskever, Joan Bruna, Dumitru Erhan, Ian Goodfellow, and Rob Fergus. 2013. Intriguing properties of neural networks. arXiv:1312.6199 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. James Tu, Mengye Ren, Sivabalan Manivasagam, Ming Liang, Bin Yang, Richard Du, Frank Cheng, and Raquel Urtasun. 2020. Physically Realizable Adversarial Examples for LiDAR Object Detection. In CVPR 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Yazhou Tu, Sara Rampazzi, Bin Hao, Angel Rodriguez, Kevin Fu, and Xiali Hei. 2019. Trick or heat? Manipulating critical temperature-based control systems using rectification attacks. In CCS '19. 2301--2315.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Yazhou Tu, Vijay Srinivas Tida, Zhongqi Pan, and Xiali Hei. 2021. Transduction Shield: A Low-Complexity Method to Detect and Correct the Effects of EMI Injection Attacks on Sensors (ASIA CCS '21). Association for Computing Machinery.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. ZhixinWang and Kui Jia. 2019. Frustum ConvNet: Sliding Frustums to Aggregate Local Point-Wise Features for Amodal 3D Object Detection. IROS 2019 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. David AWare. 2017. Effects of intentional electromagnetic interference on analog to digital converter measurements of sensor outputs and general purpose input output pins. Ph.D. Dissertation. Utah State University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Yuxin Wen, Jiehong Lin, Ke Chen, CL Philip Chen, and Kui Jia. 2020. Geometryaware generation of adversarial point clouds. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 44, 6 (2020), 2984--2999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. Chong Xiang, Charles R Qi, and Bo Li. 2019. Generating 3D adversarial point clouds. In CVPR 2019. 9136--9144.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. Zhifei Xu, Runbing Hua, Jack Juang, Shengxuan Xia, Jun Fan, and Chulsoon Hwang. 2021. Inaudible Attack on Smart Speakers With Intentional Electromagnetic Interference. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques (2021).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. Bin Yang, Wenjie Luo, and Raquel Urtasun. 2018. Pixor: Real-time 3D object detection from point clouds. In CVPR 2018. 7652--7660.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  68. Jiancheng Yang, Qiang Zhang, Rongyao Fang, Bingbing Ni, Jinxian Liu, and Qi Tian. 2019. Adversarial attack and defense on point sets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.10899 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Zetong Yang, Yanan Sun, Shu Liu, and Jiaya Jia. 2020. 3dssd: Point-based 3d single stage object detector. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 11040--11048.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. Kentaro Yoshioka. 2022. A Tutorial and Review of Automobile Direct ToF LiDAR SoCs: Evolution of Next-Generation LiDARs. IEICE Transactions on Electronics (2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Guoming Zhang, Chen Yan, Xiaoyu Ji, Tianchen Zhang, Taimin Zhang, and Wenyuan Xu. 2017. Dolphinattack: Inaudible voice commands. In CCS '17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. Min Zhang. 2021. A CAPACITIVELY COUPLED PIN INJECTION METHOD -- AN ALTERNATIVE TO BCI TEST.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Qifan Zhang, Junjie Shen, Mingtian Tan, Zhe Zhou, Zhou Li, Qi Alfred Chen, and Haipeng Zhang. 2022. Play the Imitation Game: Model Extraction Attack against Autonomous Driving Localization. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference. 56--70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. Qian-Yi Zhou, Jaesik Park, and Vladlen Koltun. 2018. Open3D: A Modern Library for 3D Data Processing. arXiv:1801.09847 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Yin Zhou and Oncel Tuzel. 2018. Voxelnet: End-to-end learning for point cloud based 3D object detection. In CVPR 2018. 4490--4499.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  76. Yi Zhu, Chenglin Miao, Tianhang Zheng, Foad Hajiaghajani, Lu Su, and Chunming Qiao. 2021. Can We Use Arbitrary Objects to Attack LiDAR Perception in Autonomous Driving?. In CCS '21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. EMI-LiDAR: Uncovering Vulnerabilities of LiDAR Sensors in Autonomous Driving Setting using Electromagnetic Interference

    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 Conferences
      WiSec '23: Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Security and Privacy in Wireless and Mobile Networks
      May 2023
      394 pages
      ISBN:9781450398596
      DOI:10.1145/3558482

      Copyright © 2023 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 the author(s) 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: 28 June 2023

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate98of338submissions,29%

      Upcoming Conference

      WiSec '24
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)349
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)44

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader