Logo PTI Logo FedCSIS

Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Computer Science and Intelligence Systems (FedCSIS)

Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, Volume 47

Modelling and analysing cyber-resilience of an autonomous vehicle with zonal architecture with SCORE+

,

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15439/2026F6570

Citation: Hanna Klaudel,

Full text

Abstract. We develop a large-scale case study of cyber resilience in a highly automated vehicle based on a zonal architecture. To this end, we use our original methodology, called SCORE+, which is an improved and automated version of our former method SCORE, designed to detect cyberattacks in distributed information systems. This methodology enables the construction of a formal model of cyberattack propagation by exploiting the system's software and hardware architecture, along with a set of cyberattack propagation patterns. This leads to an automata-based formal model that can be analysed using model-checking techniques, allowing the evaluation of the effectiveness of system defence mechanisms and thereby supporting a more systematic and rigorous risk analysis. We present the main elements of the SCORE+ methodology for constructing a cyberattack propagation model and analyse illustrative examples that explicitly incorporate critical function relocation, in order to evaluate how this mechanism enhances the vehicle's defensive capabilities against cyber threats.

References

  1. SAE levels of driving automation refined for clarity and international audience. https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update. Accessed: (February 1st, 2025).
  2. Ebios risk manager. French Cybersecurity Agency, 2024. https://www.ssi.gouv.fr/uploads/2019/11/anssi-guide-ebios_risk_ manager-en-v1.0.pdf.
  3. J. Arias, C. E Budde, W. Penczek, L. Petrucci, T. Sidoruk, and M. Stoelinga. Hackers vs. security: attack-defence trees as asynchronous multi-agent systems. In Formal Engineering Methods, pages 3–19. Springer, 2020.
  4. Z. Aslanyan and F. Nielson. Pareto efficient solutions of attack-defence trees. volume 9036, pages 95–114, 2015.
  5. A. Bagnato, B. Kordy, P. H. Meland, and P. Schweitzer. Attribute decoration of attack–defense trees. International Journal of Secure Software Engineering, 2012.
  6. M. S. Barik, A. Sengupta, and C. Mazumdar. Attack graph generation and analysis techniques. Defence Science Journal, 66(6):559, 2016.
  7. G. Behrmann, A. David, and K. G. Larsen. A tutorial on UPPAAL. In LNCS, volume 3185, pages 200–236. Springer, 2004.
  8. F. Di Maio, R. Mascherona, and E. Zio. Risk analysis of cyber-physical systems by gtst-mld. IEEE Systems Journal, 14(1):1333–1340, 2019.
  9. Mengmeng Ge, Jin B Hong, Walter Guttmann, and Dong Seong Kim. A framework for automating security analysis of the internet of things. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 83:12–27, 2017.
  10. Chris Hankin, Pasquale Malacaria, et al. Attack dynamics: an automatic attack graph generation framework based on system topology, capec, cwe, and cve databases. Computers & Security, 123:102938, 2022.
  11. G. Hutzler, H. Klaudel, W. Klaudel, F. Pommereau, and A. Rataj. Automatic discovery of cyberattacks. In IEEE International Conference on Cyber Security and Resilience, CSR 2024, pages 1–8. IEEE, 2024.
  12. G. Hutzler, H. Klaudel, W. Klaudel, F. Pommereau, and A. Rataj. An autonomous vehicle in a connected environment: case study of cyberresilience. In FedCSIS, volume 39 of Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, pages 363–373, 2024.
  13. Road vehicles, Cybersecurity engineering. Standard, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH, 2021.
  14. Sushil Jajodia, Steven Noel, and Brian O’berry. Topological analysis of network attack vulnerability. Managing Cyber Threats: Issues, Approaches, and Challenges, pages 247–266, 2005.
  15. K. Kaynar. A taxonomy for attack graph generation and usage in network security. J. of Information Security and Applications, 29:27–56, 2016.
  16. K. Kaynar and F. Sivrikaya. Distributed attack graph generation. IEEE Trans. on Dependable and Secure Computing, 13(5):519–532, 2016.
  17. H. Klaudel and W. Klaudel. Modelling and analysing cyber-resilience of an autonomous vehicle with zonal architecture with score+ (long version). 〈hal-05669933〉, 2024.
  18. B. Kordy, S. Mauw, S. Radomirović, and P. Schweitzer. Attack–defense trees. Journal of Logic and Computation, 24(1):55–87, 06 2012.
  19. R. Kumar, S. Schivo, E. Ruijters, B. Mehmet Yildiz, D. Huistra, J. Brandt, A. Rensink, and M. Stoelinga. Effective analysis of attack trees: A model-driven approach. In FASE 2018, pages 56–73. Springer International Publishing, 2018.
  20. H. Singh Lallie, K. Debattista, and J. Bal. A review of attack graph and attack tree visual syntax in cyber security. Computer Science Review, 35:100219, 2020.
  21. H. Li, Y. Wang, and Y. Cao. Searching forward complete attack graph generation algorithm based on hypergraph partitioning. Procedia Computer Science, 107:27–38, 2017.
  22. S. Mauw and M. Oostdijk. Foundations of attack trees. In Information Security and Cryptology-ICISC 2005, pages 186–198. Springer, 2006.
  23. MITRE. Common weakness enumeration, 2023. https://cwe.mitre.org/ data/index.html.
  24. R.W. Ritchey and P. Ammann. Using model checking to analyze network vulnerabilities. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 156– 165, 2000.
  25. M. Salfer, H. Schweppe, and C. Eckert. Efficient attack forest construction for automotive on-board networks. In Information Security, pages 442–453, Cham, 2014. Springer International Publishing.
  26. O. Sheyner, J. Haines, S. Jha, R. Lippmann, and J.M. Wing. Automated generation and analysis of attack graphs. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 273–284, 2002.