Automotive Cybersecurity:
A Gap Still Exists
Ponemon Institute Survey
Automotive Cybersecurity: The Gap
Still Exists
Gene	Carter
Director	of	Product	Management
Security	Innovation
Peter	Samson
Vice	President	and	General	Manager
Security	Innovation
Larry	Ponemon
Chairman
Ponemon	Institute
Today’s Speakers
Greg	Rudy
Director	of	Business	Development
INTEGRITY	Security	Services
A	Green	Hills	Company
A Few Things…
• A link to the webcast recording and a copy of the slides will be sent to
all registrants.
• Submit your questions at any time. They will be addressed at the end
of the webcast.
• The Automotive Cyber Security White Paper can be found at
https://web.securityinnovation.com/automotive-cybersecurity-gap-
still-exists
The State of Automotive
Cyber Security
Peter Samson
Vice President and General Manager
Security Innovation
F22	Raptor
2	Million	LoC7	Million	LoC 130	Million	LoC
Software Complexity
787	Dreamliner 2016 Ford	F150
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/million-lines-of-code/
"Perfection	is	achieved,	not	when	there	is	nothing	more	to	add,	but	when	
there	is	nothing	left	to	take	away."									 Antoine	de	Saint-Exupéry
Connected Vehicle Market Growth
$152	billion	
$141	billion
$132	billion
$128	billion
$98	billion
Five-year	Economic	ValueNumber	of	Connected	Cars
What Could Go Wrong?
Theft
Terrorism
Revenge
Mischief
Extortion	- Ransomware
Insurance	fraud
Espionage
Stalking
Feature	(de)activation
Identity	theft
Counterfeiting
Entry Points for Hackers
Internal
Diagnostic	Port
CD/DVD
USB/SD	card
Aux	input
CAN	Bus
Other	networks
Mobile	phone
External
Bluetooth
Internet
Wi-Fi
Key	fob
LIDAR
Digital	broadcasts
Tire	Pressure	Monitors
Tail	light
DSRC
The Hacker Threat - 2015
A	Sky	News	investigation	finds	that	almost	
half	the	89,000	vehicles	broken	into	in	London	
last	year	were	hacked	electronically.
The Hacker Threat - 2016
The Hacker Threat - 2016
Cybersecurity Standards
Hacking protection
Data security
Hacking mitigation
Privacy standards
Transparency
Consumer choice
Marketing prohibition
Cyber dashboard
A window sticker showing how well the car
protects the security and privacy of the owner.
Government Takes Action
The Security and Privacy in Your Car (SPY) Act
And Warns the Public
Digital Millennium Copyright Act
11/2/2016
05:50	PM
Information Sharing and Access Centers
Automotive	Security	Best	Practices
ü Security	by	design
ü Risk	assessment	and	management
ü Threat	detection	and	protection
ü Incident	response
ü Collaboration	with	third	parties	
ü Governance
ü Awareness	and	training
Sponsored by Security Innovation and
Integrity Security Services
Automotive Cybersecurity:
The Gap Still Exists
Larry	Ponemon
Chairman
Ponemon	Institute
During August 2016 the Ponemon Institute
conducted a cybersecurity survey of more than
500 automotive developers, programmers,
engineers, and executives, from automakers
(OEMs) and their electronics suppliers.
Introduction
Summary Findings
• A growing concern that hackers are actively targeting automobiles.
• OEMs are more concerned than their suppliers about automobiles being hacked
• The lack of skilled personnel and requirements, and pressure to meet release
dates are the main impediments to secure software development.
• Insufficient use of cryptography.
• Legacy technology is hindering the ability to make vehicles more secure.
• Automakers believe they are not as knowledgeable about secure software
development as other industries.
• There is little clarity or consensus regarding a single point of responsibility
• On the positive side, there is a small but statistically significant trend toward a
more mature approach to securing vehicles.
Sample	response Number %
Sampling	frame 8,680	 100.0%
Total	returns 590	 6.8%
Rejected	or	screened	surveys 63	 0.7%
Final	sample 527	 6.1%
Survey Size
Methods
Demographics
Headcount	of	Companies	Surveyed
Demographics
Reporting	LinesJob	Roles
Demographics
Number	of	Software	Developers Development	Responsibilities
Responses
Perceptions about automotive security
42%
43%
45%
44%
47%
47%
51%
52%
MY	COMPANY	MAKES	AUTOMOTIVE	SECURITY	A	PRIORITY
AUTOMOTIVE	DEVELOPMENT	TEAMS	HAVE	THE	SKILLS	
NECESSARY	TO	COMBAT	CYBERSECURITY	THREATS
MY	ORGANIZATION	RECRUITS	AND	RETAINS	EXPERT	PERSONNEL	
TO	MINIMIZE	SECURITY	RISKS	IN	AUTOMOBILES
HACKERS	ARE	ACTIVELY	TARGETING	AUTOMOBILES
FY	2016 FY	2015
AGREE
45%DISAGREE
55%
Workers
IS	SECURITY	A	PRIORITY	FOR	YOUR	COMPANY?
AGREE
61%
DISAGREE
39%
Management
AGREE
52%UNSURE
28%
DISAGREE	
20%
ARE	HACKER	TARGETING	CARS?
Organizational Alignment ?
Who is responsible for Security?
23%
17%
18%
11%
12%
19%
CIO
CISO
Partner
QA
Developer
No	One!
Perceptions about security practices
26%
44%
45%
43%
44%
24%
39%
43%
47%
49%
MY	COMPANY	HAS	THE	ENABLING	TECHNOLOGIES	TO	ENSURE	
AUTOMOTIVE	DEVELOPMENT	IS	SECURE
AUTOMAKERS	ARE	NOT	AS	KNOWLEDGEABLE	ABOUT	SECURE	
PLATFORM	DEVELOPMENT	AS	OTHER	INDUSTRIES	ARE
IT	WILL	BE	THE	NORM	FOR	MY	COMPANY	TO	PARTICIPATE	IN	OPEN	
DISCLOSURE	OF	BUGS	AND	BUG	BOUNTY	PROGRAMS
MY	COMPANY’S	AUTOMOTIVE	DEVELOPMENT	PROCESS	INCLUDES	
ACTIVITIES	FOR	SECURITY	REQUIREMENTS,	DESIGN,	IMPLEMENTATION	
AND	TESTING
ENGINEERS	AND	DEVELOPERS	ARE	ADEQUATELY	TRAINED	IN	SECURE	
ARCHITECTURE	AND	CODING	PRACTICES
FY	2016 FY	2015
Challenges to securing automobile software
12%
16%
38%
48%
64%
67%
54%
6%
11%
18%
34%
43%
58%
65%
65%
OTHER
TOO	EXPENSIVE
ADDS	TOO	MUCH	TIME	TO	THE	SOFTWARE	DEVELOPMENT	PROCESS
LACK	OF	FORMAL	SECURITY	REQUIREMENTS
LACK	OF	DEFINED	CORPORATE	APPLICATION	SECURITY	POLICIES
INSUFFICIENT	RESOURCES
LACK	OF	SKILLED	PERSONNEL
PRESSURE	TO	RELEASE
FY	2016 FY	2015
What methods does your team use to ensure code
is secure without vulnerabilities?
65%
48%
41%
27%
25%
24%
23%
3%
63%
50%
36%
0%
27%
24%
25%
10%
AUTOMATED	CODE	SCANNING	TOOLS	DURING	DEVELOPMENT
AUTOMATED	CODE	SCANNING	TOOLS	AFTER	RELEASE
MANUAL	PENETRATION	TESTING
NONE	OF	THE	ABOVE
AUTOMATED	SCANNING	TOOLS	USED	IN	PRODUCTION
THREAT	MODELLING/RISK	ASSESSMENT	DURING	DEVELOPMENT
ADHERENCE	TO	SECURE	CODING	STANDARDS
OTHER
2016 2015
35%
39%
18%
7%
1%
Very	difficult Difficult Somewhat	difficult Not	difficult Easy
How difficult is it to secure automobiles?
How difficult is it to secure automobiles?
1%
7%
18%
39%
35%
2%
9%
21%
33%
36%
1	TO	2 3	TO	4 5	TO	6 7	TO	8 9	TO	10
FY	2016 FY	2015
Easy Hard
Is it possible to build a near hack proof car?
17%
55%
28%
19%
47%
34%
YES NO UNSURE
FY	2016 FY	2015
Challenges to Securing Automobiles
11%
16%
38%
48%
54%
67%
18%
34%
43%
65%
65%
TOO	EXPENSIVE
ADDS	TOO	MUCH	TIME
LACK	OF		REQUIREMENTS
LACK	OF	COMPANY	POLICY
PRESSURE	TO	RELEASE
LACK	OF	SKILLED	PEOPLE
2016 2015
“Pick	Top	3	challenges”
Caveats
There are inherent limitations to survey research that need to be carefully considered before drawing
inferences from findings. The following items are specific limitations that are germane to most web-based
surveys.
Non-response bias: The current findings are based on a sample of survey returns. We sent surveys to a representative
sample of individuals, resulting in a large number of usable returned responses. Despite non-response tests, it is
always possible that individuals who did not participate are substantially different in terms of underlying beliefs from
those who completed the instrument.
Sampling-frame bias: The accuracy is based on contact information and the degree to which the list is representative
of individuals who are automotive application development process. We also acknowledge that the results may be
biased by external events such as media coverage. Finally, because we used a Web-based collection method, it is
possible that non-Web responses by mailed survey or telephone call would result in a different pattern of findings.
Self-reported results: The quality of survey research is based on the integrity of confidential responses received from
subjects. While certain checks and balances can be incorporated into the survey process, there is always the
possibility that a subject did not provide a truthful response.
©	2016	INTEGRITY	Security	Services	- Confidential Slide	36
experts	in	end-to-end	embedded	security
Car Cybersecurity: The Gap Still Exists
Gregory Rudy
Director of Business Development
Driving Forward
©	2016	INTEGRITY	Security	Services,	Inc	- Confidential Slide	37
Threat	Actors
q Who	are	these	hackers?
§ Individuals	(significant	time,	varied	expertise,	limited	$	&	capability)
§ Corporate	(moderate	time,	high	expertise,	moderate	$	&	capability)
§ Universities	(moderate	time	&	$,	high	expertise,	high	capability)
§ Terrorists	(moderate	time,	varied	expertise,	moderate	$	&	capability)
§ Nation	states	(significant	time,	high	expertise,	high	$	&	capability)
q Hacking	Goals
§ Fame	and	notoriety
§ Economic	gain	– e.g.,	unlock	hidden	functionality;	access	IP/content
§ Terrorism	- e.g.,	disrupt	a	city	at	rush	hour;	remove	fleet	from	service
q Hacking	consequences
§ Brand	damage	– loss	of	customer	confidence	in	products/systems
§ Liability
§ Economic	loss
©	2016	INTEGRITY	Security	Services,	Inc	- Confidential Slide	38
Standards:		ISO	26262	Safety
Using	ISO	26262	≠ Security	in	your	design
q If	you	design	to	ISO	26262	for	safety,	other	considerations	must
be	taken	to	achieve	levels	of	system	security
§ Secure	Boot
§ Device	Authentication
§ Software	Authentication
§ FIPS	140-2	Cryptography
§ Use	of	products	that	adhere	to	and	are	certified	to	high	
Evaluation	Assurance	Levels	(EAL)	by	BSI	and/or	Common	
Criteria
§ And	more….
©	2016	INTEGRITY	Security	Services,	Inc	- Confidential Slide	39
ECU	Security	Architecture	Design
q Many	are	looking	in	the	rear	view	mirror	to	“solve”	
current	and	future	vehicle	security	problems
§ Focus	on	IT	enterprise-style	solution	of	perimeter	
security	
• “All	we	need	is	a	firewall	and	IDS”
• Network		segmentation
• SSL	to	the	cloud
o Improper/outdated	crypto
o Poor	authentication
q “The	concept	of	perimeter	control	is	in	total	crisis”	–
Dan	Geer,	CISO	of	In-Q-Tel
Totally	
integrated,	
15%
Partially	
integrated,	
34%
Added	on,	
47%
Unsure,	4%
Does	your	company	integrate	security	architecture	
design	into	the	development	process?
©	2016	INTEGRITY	Security	Services,	Inc	- Confidential Slide	40
ECU	Security	Architecture	Design
q Embedded	space	is	fundamentally	different
§ Constrained	environments
§ Well	defined	functionality	on	most	ECUs
• Infotainment	is	the	outlier	due	to	Android/IOS	support	&	passenger	
device/application	interface.	
§ We	can	do	much	better	by	designing	for	this	environment!
§ Defense	in	depth	is	still	required	and	attainable!
©	2016	INTEGRITY	Security	Services,	Inc.	- Confidential Slide	41
Retrofitting	Security	is	Hard	to	Do
©	2016	INTEGRITY	Security	Services,	Inc	- Confidential Slide	42
First	Steps	- Understand	the	Task	
q Identify	critical	assets	that	require	protection	and	their	lifetimes
§ Intellectual	property,	gold	firmware	images/bitstreams,	software/feature	updates,	secrets	(keys),	
identities
§ ECUs	fielded	for	20	– 30	years
q Understand	the	attack	surfaces	that	can	be	exploited	to	recover/modify	the	critical	assets
§ Application	&	implementation	dependent
§ All	remote	and	local	connectivity	points
• Wireless	(BT,	WiFi,	Cellular,	GPS,	etc.)	&	wired	(USB,	Ethernet,	CAN,	DVD,	OBD-II,	etc)
§ Physical	analysis	of	ECU	internals
©	2016	INTEGRITY	Security	Services,	Inc	- Confidential Slide	43
First	Steps
q Understand	the	difficulty	of	exploiting	the	attack	surfaces
§ Can	an	attacker	analyze	one	ECU	to	recover	an	asset	that	can	compromise	a	
large	number	of	vehicles?
§ Can	over-the-air	messages	be	sent	to	arbitrary	vehicles?
§ Can	the	service	network	be	used	to	inject	specific	data?
q Examine	the	likelihood	of	exploitation
§ A	local	physical	attack	that	compromises	a	single	vehicle	is	far	less	
interesting	than	one	that	compromises	many
§ Remote	attacks	are	the	holy	grail
§ A	nation-state	can	be	very	patient	and	persistent
q Don’t	assume	proprietary	implementations	will	protect	you!
§ Arrogance	and	ignorance	can	each	destroy	your	ECU
©	2016	INTEGRITY	Security	Services,	Inc.	- Confidential Slide	44
Holistic	View	Across	All	Domains	is	Required
Product
Security Domain
Manufacturing
Security Domain
Operations
Security Domain
- Hardware
- Firmware
- OS
- Applications
- Contract Manufacturing
- Chip Providers
- Board Providers
- Test Houses
- ISVs
- Updates
- Feature Control
- Content Mgmt
- Users
- Administrators
- Hackers
Security Must Exist in All Domains
44
Totally	
integrated,	
11%
Partially	
integrated,	
29%
Added	on,	
55%
Unsure,	5%
Does	your	company	integrate	the	security	
architecture,	including	the	entire	supply	
chain	and	partner	network?
©	2016	INTEGRITY	Security	Services,	Inc.	- Confidential Slide	45
ECU	Cryptographic	Boundary
q FIPS	140-2	requires	all	hardware,	software	and	
firmware	implementing	cryptographic	functions	
including	algorithms	and	key	generation	be	
contained	within	a	defined	cryptographic	boundary
q Reliable	and	separate	from	untrusted	software
q Begins	with	a	hardware	root	of	trust
§ Secure	Boot	Support
§ Random	Number	Generation
§ Secure	Key	Storage
§ Cryptographic	Acceleration
§ Anti-Tamper	protection 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Secure	boot Encrypted	
communication
Endpoint	
authentication
Encrypted	data	in	
storage
Which	of	the	following	system	security	
features	does	your	company	currently	
use?	Select	all	that	apply
©	2016	INTEGRITY	Security	Services,	Inc	- Confidential Slide	46
Defense	in	Depth
Hardware	Root	of	Trust
Software	Crypto
Secure	Boot
Security	Protocols
Separation	Design
Remote	Updates
Establish	a	Trusted	Platform	
Secure	secure	communication
Minimize	software	defect	risk
©	2016	INTEGRITY	Security	Services,	Inc	- Confidential Slide	47
Todays	Complex	Supply	Chains
Headquarters
Manufacturing
Sites
3rd Parties
Strategic	Partners
©	2016	INTEGRITY	Security	Services,	Inc	- Confidential Slide	48
Infrastructure	Requirement
Security	Infrastructures	Must
q Sign	software	images
q Generate	Keys	and	Certificates
q Inject	sensitive	material
q Root	key	protection
q Device	Authentication
q Remote	Management
q Software	Updates
Critical	Considerations:
§ Distributed	Supply	
Chains
§ Multiple	Products
§ Partner	Access
§ High-Availability
§ Changing	Algorithms
©	2016	INTEGRITY	Security	Services,	Inc	- Confidential Slide	49
Enterprise	Security	Infrastructure
Zero	exposure	distribution	of	trust	assets	across	global	supply	chains
©	2016	INTEGRITY	Security	Services,	Inc	- Confidential Slide	50
Don’t	be	Afraid	to	Ask…
q This	presentation	only	covers	a	few	of	the	architecture	design	issues	for	
ECUs
§ “Cryptographic	protocols	and	their	implementations	…they’re	very	
hard	to	get	right.”	– Steven	Bellovin,	professor,	Columbia	University
q Honestly	assess	your	teams	expertise	in	these	areas
§ Secure	design	&	implementation,	supply	chain	security,	post	sale	
security
q Diebold	got	it	ALL	wrong	in	their	voting	machines
q Reach	out	to	an	expert	group	such	as	INTEGRITY	Security	Services	to	
help	you	so	your	ECU	security	is	correct	from	the	start
§ Save	design	time	– more	eyes	on	the	problem,	the	better!
§ Secure	your	supply	chain
§ Prevent	recalls
§ Protect	revenue	&	brand
Q&A
Thank you!
Learn more about our automotive services:
https://www.securityinnovation.com/solutions/auto-industry-security
Download the whitepaper:
https://web.securityinnovation.com/automotive-cybersecurity-gap-still-exists

Car Cybersecurity: The Gap Still Exists