skip to main content
10.1145/3631204.3631864acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

From TARA to Test: Automated Automotive Cybersecurity Test Generation Out of Threat Modeling

Published:05 December 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) demands the management of cyber security risks in vehicle design and that the effectiveness of these measures is verified by testing. Generally, with rising complexity and openness of systems via software-defined vehicles, verification through testing becomes a very important for security assurance. This mandates the introduction of industrial-grade cybersecurity testing in automotive development processes. Currently, the automotive cybersecurity testing procedures are not specified or automated enough to be able to deliver tests in the amount and thoroughness needed to keep up with that regulation, let alone doing so in a cost-efficient manner. This paper presents a methodology to automatically generate technology-agnostic test scenarios from the results of threat analysis and risk assessment (TARA) process. Our approach is to transfer the resulting threat models into attack trees and label their edges using actions from a domain-specific language (DSL) for attack descriptions. This results in a labelled transitions system (LTS), in which every labelled path intrinsically forms a test scenario. In addition, we include the concept of Cybersecurity Assurance Levels (CALs) and Targeted Attack Feasibility (TAF) into testing by assigning them as costs to the attack path. This abstract test scenario can be compiled into a concrete test case by augmenting it with implementation details. Therefore, the efficacy of the measures taken because of the TARA can be verified and documented. As TARA is a de-facto mandatory step in the UNECE regulation and the relevant ISO standard, automatic test generation (also mandatory) out of it could mean a significant improvement in efficiency, as two steps could be done at once.

References

  1. Amenaza Technologies Limited. 2023. SecurITree. Online. https://www.amenaza.com Accessed: 2023-10-03.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Paul Ammann, Duminda Wijesekera, and Saket Kaushik. 2002. Scalable, Graph-Based Network Vulnerability Analysis. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 217–224.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Jeremy Bryans, Hoang Nga Nguyen, and Siraj Ahmed Shaikh. 2019-01. Attack Defense Trees with Sequential Conjunction. In 2019 IEEE 19th International Symposium on High Assurance Systems Engineering (HASE). IEEE, Hangzhou, China, 247–252. https://doi.org/10.1109/HASE.2019.00045Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Madeline Cheah, Hoang Nga Nguyen, Jeremy Bryans, and Siraj A. Shaikh. 2018. Formalising Systematic Security Evaluations Using Attack Trees for Automotive Applications. In Information Security Theory and Practice, Gerhard P. Hancke and Ernesto Damiani (Eds.). Vol. 10741. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 113–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93524-9_7 Series Title: Lecture Notes in Computer Science.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Sebastian Chlup, Korbinian Christl, Christoph Schmittner, Abdelkader Magdy Shaaban, Stefan Schauer, and Martin Latzenhofer. 2023. THREATGET: Towards Automated Attack Tree Analysis for Automotive Cybersecurity. Inf. 14, 1 (2023), 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/info14010014Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Korbinian Christl and Thorsten Tarrach. 2021. The analysis approach of ThreatGet. CoRR abs/2107.09986 (2021), 57 pages. arXiv:2107.09986https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.09986Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Frédéric Cuppens and Rodolphe Ortalo. 2000. Lambda: A Language to Model a Database for Detection of Attacks. In International Workshop on Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 197–216.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Dag Eng. 2017. Integrated Threat Modelling. Master’s thesis. University of Olso.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Foreseeti AB. 2020. Foreseeti. Online. https://foreseeti.com/ Accessed: 2020-11-29.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Md. Shariful Haque and Travis Atkison. 2017. An Evolutionary Approach of Attack Graph to Attack Tree Conversion. International Journal of Computer Network and Information Security 9, 11 (Nov. 2017), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.5815/ijcnis.2017.11.01Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Terrance R Ingoldsby. 2021. Attack Tree-Based Threat Risk Analysis. Technical Report. Amenaza Technologies Limited.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. International Organization for Standardization. 2022. Information Security, Cybersecurity and Privacy Protection – Evaluation Criteria for IT Security – Part 2: Security Functional Components. ISO/IEC Standard 15408-2:2022. International Organization for Standardization.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. International Organization for Standardization and Society of Automotive Engineers. 2021. Road Vehicles – Cybersecurity Engineering. ISO/SAE Standard "21434". International Organization for Standardization.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. International Organization for Standardization and Society of Automotive Engineers. 2022. ISO/SAE PAS8475 (WIP) Road Vehicles – Cybersecurity Assurance Levels and Targeted Attack Feasibility - SAE International. https://www.sae.org/standards/content/iso/sae%20pas8475/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. International Organization for Standardization and Society of Automotive Engineers. 2023. ISO/SAE PAS8477 (WIP) Road Vehicles - Cybersecurity Verification and Validation - SAE International. https://www.sae.org/standards/content/iso/sae%20pas8477/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Isograph. 2023. Isograph AttackTree. Online. https://www.isograph.com/software/attacktree/ Accessed: 2023-10-03.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Robert M. Keller. 1976. Formal Verification of Parallel Programs. Commun. ACM 19, 7 (July 1976), 371–384. https://doi.org/10.1145/360248.360251Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Rafiullah Khan, Kieran McLaughlin, David Laverty, and Sakir Sezer. 2017. STRIDE-based threat modeling for cyber-physical systems. In 2017 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference Europe (ISGT-Europe). IEEE, New York, NY, 1–6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Barbara Kordy, Sjouke Mauw, Saša Radomirović, and Patrick Schweitzer. 2011. Foundations of Attack–Defense Trees. In Formal Aspects of Security and Trust, Pierpaolo Degano, Sandro Etalle, and Joshua Guttman (Eds.). Vol. 6561. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 80–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19751-2_6 Series Title: Lecture Notes in Computer Science.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. D Richard Kuhn, Raghu N Kacker, and Yu Lei. 2010. Practical Combinatorial Testing. SP 800-142. National Institute of Standards and Technology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Harjinder Singh Lallie, Kurt Debattista, and Jay Bal. 2020. A Review of Attack Graph and Attack Tree Visual Syntax in Cyber Security. Computer Science Review 35 (Feb. 2020), 100219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2019.100219Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Georg Macher, Harald Sporer, Reinhard Berlach, Eric Armengaud, and Christian Kreiner. 2015. SAHARA: A Security-Aware Hazard and Risk Analysis Method. In 2015 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE). IEEE, Grenoble, France, 621–624. https://doi.org/10.7873/DATE.2015.0622Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Stefan Marksteiner, Nadja Marko, Andre Smulders, Stelios Karagiannis, Florian Stahl, Hayk Hamazaryan, Rupert Schlick, Stefan Kraxberger, and Alexandr Vasenev. 2021. A Process to Facilitate Automated Automotive Cybersecurity Testing. In 2021 IEEE 93rd Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Spring). IEEE, New York, NY, USA, 1–7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Sjouke Mauw and Martijn Oostdijk. 2005. Foundations of Attack Trees. In Information Security and Cryptology - ICISC 2005, Dong Ho Won and Seungjoo Kim (Eds.). Vol. 3935. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 186–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/11734727_17Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. C. C. Michael, Ken van Wyk, and Will Radosevich. 2005. Risk-Based and Functional Security Testing. Technical Report. U.S. Deparmtent of Homeland Security.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Cédric Michel and Ludovic Mé. 2001. ADeLe: An Attack Description Language for Knowledge-Based Intrusion Detection. In Trusted Information(IFIP International Federation for Information Processing), Michel Dupuy and Pierre Paradinas (Eds.). Springer US, Boston, MA, 353–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-46998-7_25Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Carl Adam Petri. 1962. Kommunikation mit Automaten. Ph. D. Dissertation. Technische Universität Darmstadt.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Cynthia Phillips and Laura Painton Swiler. 1998. A Graph-Based System for Network-Vulnerability Analysis. In Proceedings of the 1998 Workshop on New Security Paradigms. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 71–79.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Magdy El Sadany, Christoph Schmittner, and Wolfgang Kastner. 2019. Assuring Compliance with Protection Profiles with ThreatGet. In SAFECOMP 2019 Workshops(Lecture Notes in Computer Science). Springer, Berlin, 62–73.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Christoph Schmittner, Bernhard Schrammel, and Sandra König. 2021. Asset Driven ISO/SAE 21434 Compliant Automotive Cybersecurity Analysis with ThreatGet. In Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement(Communications in Computer and Information Science), Murat Yilmaz, Paul Clarke, Richard Messnarz, and Michael Reiner (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 548–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85521-5_36Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Bruce Schneier. 1999. Attack Trees. Dr. Dobb’s journal 24, 12 (1999), 21–29.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Raivo Sell, Mairo Leier, Anton Rassõlkin, and Juhan-Peep Ernits. 2020. Autonomous Last Mile Shuttle ISEAUTO for Education and Research. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning 10, 1 (Jan. 2020), 18–30. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJAIML.2020010102Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Adam Shostack. 2014. Threat Modeling: Designing for Security. John Wiley & Sons, Indianaplois, IN.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Tutamantic Ltd.2020. Tutamen Threat Model Automator. Online. https://www.tutamantic.com/ Accessed: 2020-11-29.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. United Nations Economic and Social Council - Economic Commission for Europe. 2020. UN Regulation on Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Vehicles with Regard to Cyber Security and of Their Cybersecurity Management Systems. Technical Report ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2020/79. United Nations Economic and Social Council - Economic Commission for Europe / United Nations Economic and Social Council - Economic Commission for Europe, Brussels.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Upstream Security. 2020. Upstream Security Global Automotive Cybersecurity Report. Technical Report. Upstream Security.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. David Ward, Ireri Ibarra, and Alastair Ruddle. 2013. Threat Analysis and Risk Assessment in Automotive Cyber Security. SAE International Journal of Passenger Cars-Electronic and Electrical Systems 6, 2013-01-1415 (2013), 507–513.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Jan Was, Pooja Avhad, Matthew Coles, Nick Ozmore, Rohit Shambhuni, and Izar Tarandach. 2020. OWASP pytm. Online. https://owasp.org/www-project-pytm/ Accessed: 2020-11-29.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Christian Wolschke, Stefan Marksteiner, Tobias Braun, and Markus Wolf. 2021. An Agnostic Domain Specific Language for Implementing Attacks in an Automotive Use Case. In The 16th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security(ARES 2021). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1145/3465481.3470070Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Mark Yampolskiy, Péter Horváth, Xenofon D. Koutsoukos, Yuan Xue, and Janos Sztipanovits. 2015. A Language for Describing Attacks on Cyber-Physical Systems. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection 8 (Jan. 2015), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcip.2014.09.003Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. From TARA to Test: Automated Automotive Cybersecurity Test Generation Out of Threat Modeling

      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
        CSCS '23: Proceedings of the 7th ACM Computer Science in Cars Symposium
        December 2023
        104 pages
        ISBN:9798400704543
        DOI:10.1145/3631204

        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: 5 December 2023

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)300
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)148

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format