CSPM EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 2 (2023) Security and Safety, 2 (2023) 2022009 References
Open Access
Issue
Security and Safety
Volume 2, 2023
Article Number 2022009
Number of page(s) 16
Section Intelligent Transportation
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/sands/2022009
Published online 27 January 2023
  1. Checkoway S, McCoy D and Kantor B et al. Comprehensive experimental analyses of automotive attack surfaces. In: Proc. 20th USENIX Security, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2011, 6. [Google Scholar]
  2. Koscher K, Czeskis A and Roesner F et al. Experimental security analysis of a modern automobile. In: Proc. IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, CA, USA, May 2010, 447–62. [Google Scholar]
  3. Yadav A, Bose G and Bhange R et al. Security, vulnerability and protection of vehicular onboard diagnostics. Int J Secur Appl 2016; 10: 405–22. [Google Scholar]
  4. Petit J and Shladover SE. Potential cyberattacks on automated vehicles. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 2015; 16: 546–56. [Google Scholar]
  5. Cui J, Sabaliauskaite G and Lin SL et al. Collaborative analysis framework of safety and security for autonomous vehicles. IEEE Access 2019; 7: 148672–83. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Nassi B, Mirsky Y and Nassi D et al. Phantom of the ADAS: Securing advanced driver-assistance systems from split- second phantom attacks. In: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Virtual Event USA, 2020, 293–308. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. Keller CG, Dang T and Fritz H et al. Active pedestrian safety by automatic braking and evasive steering. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 2011; 12: 1292–304. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. Kidd DG and Brethwaite A. Visibility of children behind 2010-2013 model year passenger vehicles using glances, mirrors, and backup cameras and parking sensors. Accid Anal Prev 2014; 66: 158–67. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Prasetyo WT, Santoso P and Lim R. Adaptive cars headlamps system with image processing and lighting angle control. In: Proceedings of Second International Conference on Electrical Systems, Technology and Information 2015 (ICESTI 2015), Springer, Singapore, 2016, 415–22. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Mahajan RN and Patil A. Lane departure warning system. Int J Eng Tech Res 2015; 3: 120–3. [Google Scholar]
  11. Schellekens M. Car hacking: Navigating the regulatory landscape. Comput Law Secur Rev 2016; 32: 307–15. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hoppe T, Kiltz S and Dittmann J. Security threats to automotive CAN networks - practical examples and selected short-term countermeasures. In: Harrison MD and Sujan MA (eds.). SAFECOMP 2008, volume 5219 of LNCS. Springer-Verlag, Sept. 2008, 235–48. [Google Scholar]
  13. Azam F, Yadav SK and Priyadarshi N et al. A comprehensive review of authentication schemes in vehicular ad-hoc network. IEEE Access 2021; 9: 31309–21. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Bouguettaya A, Zarzour H and Kechida A et al. Vehicle detection from UAV imagery with deep learning: A review. IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst 2021, 33: 6047–6067. [Google Scholar]
  15. Mehrabi MA and Jolfaei A. Efficient cryptographic hardware for safety message verification in internet of connected vehicles. ACM Trans Int Technol-1 (TOIT) 2022, 86: 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  16. Armin J, Foti P and Cremonini M. 0-day vulnerabilities and cybercrime. In: Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, IEEE, Toulouse France, 2015, 711–8. [Google Scholar]
  17. Lisova E, Sljivo I and Causevic A. Safety and security co-analyses: A systematic literature review. IEEE Syst J 2019; 13: 2189–200. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. SAE. SAE J3061: Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice - Cybersecurity Guidebook for Cyber-Physical Vehicle Systems. SAE International, Tech. Rep., 2016. [Google Scholar]
  19. Macher G, Sporer H and Berlach R et al. SAHARA: A security-aware hazard and risk analysis method. In: Proc. IEEE DATE, Grenoble, France, Mar. 2015, 621–4. [Google Scholar]
  20. Cui J and Sabaliauskaite G. US2: An unified safety and security analysis method for autonomous vehicles. In: Proceedings of the Future of Information and Communication Conference, Singapore, 5-6 Apr. 2018, 600–11. [Google Scholar]
  21. Kavallieratos G, Katsikas S and Gkioulos V. Cybersecurity and safety co-engineering of cyberphysical systems-a comprehensive survey. Future Internet 2020; 12: 65. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. Lyu X, Ding Y and Yang SH. Safety and security risk assessment in cyber-physical systems. IET Cyber-Phys Syst Theor Appl 2019; 4: 221–32. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. Kriaa S, Pietre-Cambacedes L and Bouissou M et al. A survey of approaches combining safety and security for industrial control systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2015; 139: 156–78. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. Sabaliauskaite G, Liew LS and Cui J. Integrating autonomous vehicle safety and security analysis using STPA method and the six-step model. Int J Adv Secur 2018; 11: 160–9. [Google Scholar]
  25. Guzman NHC, Kufoalor DKM and Kozin I et al. Combined safety and security risk analysis using the UFoI-E method: A case study of an autonomous surface vessel. In: Proceedings of the 29th European Safety and Reliability Conference, Hannover, Germany, 22-26 Sept. 2019, 4099–106. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ito M. Finding threats with hazards in the concept phase of product development. In: European Conference on Software Process Improvement, Luxembourg, 25-27 Jun. 2014, 277–84. [Google Scholar]
  27. Apvrille L and Roudier Y. Designing safe and secure embedded and cyber-physical systems with SysML-Sec. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development, Angers, France, 9-11 Feb. 2015, 293–308. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. Macher G, Höller A and Sporer H et al. A combined safety-hazards and security-threat analysis method for automotive systems. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security, Delft, The Netherlands, 22-25 Sept. 2014, 237–50. [Google Scholar]
  29. Popov PT. Stochastic modeling of safety and security of the e-Motor, an ASIL-D device. In: Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security, Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2015, 385–99. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. Wei J, Matsubara Y and Takada H. HAZOP-based security analysis for embedded systems: Case study of open source immobilizer protocol stack. In: Recent Advances in Systems Safety and Security, Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2016, 79–96. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. Islam MM, Lautenbach A and Sandberg C et al. A risk assessment framework for automotive embedded systems. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM International Workshop on Cyber-Physical System Security, Xi'an, China, 30 May 2016, 3–14. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  32. Ponsard C, Dallons G and Massonet P. Goal-oriented co-engineering of security and safety requirements in cyber- physical systems. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security, Trondheim, Norway, 20-23 Sept. 2016, 334–45. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. Schmittner C, Ma Z and Puschner P. Limitation and improvement of STPA-Sec for safety and security co-analysis. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security, Trondheim, Norway, 20-23 Sept. 2016, 195–209. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  34. Dürrwang J, Beckers K and Kriesten R. A lightweight threat analysis approach intertwining safety and security for the automotive domain. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security, Trento, Italy, 12-15 Sept. 2017, 305–19. [Google Scholar]
  35. Stoneburner G. Toward a unified security-safety model. Computer 2006; 39: 96–7. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  36. Aven T. A unified framework for risk and vulnerability analysis covering both safety and security. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2007; 92: 745–54. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  37. Piètre-Cambaćedès L, Deflesselle Y and Bouissou M. Security modeling with BDMP: From theory to implementation. In: Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Network and Information Systems Security, La Rochelle, France, May 2011, 18–21. [Google Scholar]
  38. Apvrille L and Roudier Y. Towards the model-driven engineering of secure yet safe embedded systems. ArXiv preprint [arXiv:1404.1985], 2014. (accessed on 8 November 2019). [Google Scholar]
  39. Simpson A, Woodcock J and Davies J. Safety through Security. IEEE Press, Ise-Shima Japan, 1998, 18–24. [Google Scholar]
  40. Schmittner C, Ma Z and Schoitsch E et al. A case study of FMVEA and CHASSIS as safety and security co-analysis method for automotive cyber-physical systems. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM Workshop on Cyber-Physical System Security, Singapore, 14 Apr. 2015, 69–80. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  41. Schmittner C, Ma Z and Smith P. FMVEA for safety and security analysis of intelligent and cooperative vehicles. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security, Florence, Italy, 10-12 Sept. 2014, 282–8. [Google Scholar]
  42. Jaynarayan H, Lala CE and Landwehr JF. Autonomous vehicle safety: Lesson from aviation. Commun ACM 2020; 63: 28. [Google Scholar]
  43. Wu JX. Cyberspace Mimic Defense. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  44. Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), SAE-J3016: Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving a systems for on-road motor vehicles, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  45. Cao Y, Xiao C and Cyr B et al. Adversarial sensor attack on lidar-based perception in autonomous driving. In: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC conference on Computer and Communications Security, London United Kingdom, 2019, 2267–81. [Google Scholar]
  46. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Traffic Safety Facts Research Note, Oct. 2019. https://www.nhtsa.gov/traffic-deaths-2018. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.