TrendLabs

A Vulnerability in Modern Automotive
Standards and How We Exploited It
Technical Brief

TrendLabs Security Intelligence Blog
Federico Maggi
Forward-Looking Threat Research (FTR) Team
August 2017

TREND MICRO LEGAL DISCLAIMER
The information provided herein is for general information and educational purposes only. It is not intended and should not be construed to constitute legal advice.
The information contained herein may not be applicable to all situations and may not reflect the most current situation. Nothing contained herein should be reliedon or acted upon without the benefit of legal advice based on the particular facts and circumstances presented and nothing herein should be construed otherwise.
Trend Micro reserves the right to modify the contents of this document at any time without prior notice.
Translations of any material into other languages are intended solely as a convenience. Translation accuracy is not guaranteed nor implied. If any questions arise
related to the accuracy of a translation, please refer to the original language official version of the document. Any discrepancies or differences created in thetranslation are not binding and have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement purposes.
Although Trend Micro uses reasonable efforts to include accurate and up-to-date information herein, Trend Micro makes no warranties or representations of any
kind as to its accuracy, currency, or completeness. You agree that access to and use of and reliance on this document and the content thereof is at your own risk.
Trend Micro disclaims all warranties of any kind, express or implied. Neither Trend Micro nor any party involved in creating, producing, or delivering this document
shall be liable for any consequence, loss, or damage, including direct, indirect, special, consequential, loss of business profits, or special damages, whatsoever
arising out of access to, use of, or inability to use, or in connection with the use of this document, or any errors or omissions in the content thereof. Use of thisinformation constitutes acceptance for use in an “as is” condition.

This research is a joint effort between Politecnico di Milano, Linklayer Labs, and Trend Micro's
FTR. In this report, we describe a vulnerability in modern cars’ networks that allows acompletely stealthy denial-of-service attack which is undetectable by current security
mechanisms and works for every automotive vendor. This attack differs drastically from otherpreviously reported car hacks because it does not exploit easily patchable software
vulnerabilities. Rather, the element exploited is a design flaw, which is thus fundamentally hard
to solve, in the standard that defines how in-vehicle networks work.
This attack was presented at the 2017 international conference on Detection of Intrusions and
Malware & Vulnerability Assessment (DIMVA) in Bonn (Jul 6–7). Prior to that, we coordinatedwith the ICS-CERT, which promptly disseminated an alert (ICS-ALERT-17-209-01).

Introduction
When security experts hear about a new cybersecurity issue in the automotive domain, theytend to dismiss it quickly because car hacks often require either some form of local access or aremotely exploitable vulnerability (which can be patched to solve the problem). The former iseven considered less likely. In fact, remotely exploitable vulnerabilities found in in-vehicle
systems (like those used by Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek in their well-known “Jeep hack”)
are much more interesting for an attacker, and much more severe for automotive vendors,compared to attacks that require local access. And, at the end of the day, once a remotely
exploitable flaw is found and patched, the security issue is deemed resolved.
Current trends in transportation challenge such beliefs as it is now much more common to haveanyone gain local access to someone’s car. Consider car sharing, ride sharing, autonomousvehicles—these are becoming commonplace scenarios where many users can access thesame vehicle. This change in paradigm calls for an appropriate change in the threat model,
which must now encompass a local attacker.
Our discovery involves an actual working local attack which is not only completely undetectableand vendor neutral but also cannot be easily resolved by a simple remote patch and/or update.
In addition, in our DIMVA paper, we discuss how our attack can be performed remotely. With
this, both industries (security and automotive alike) must prepare to embrace a paradigm
change and address this burgeoning security issue.

How Modern Cars Work from a CAN Standpoint

Figure 1: The technologies inside the modern car
In-vehicle equipment (e.g., parking sensors, airbag, active safety system, anti-braking system)and systems (e.g., infotainment) communicate with each other through what is called aController Area Network (CAN).
After initial development by Bosch in 1983, the CAN protocol was officially released in 1986 andwas first featured in production vehicles in 1989. In 1993, the International Organization forStandardization (ISO) accepted CAN as a standard and published ISO 11898 for road vehicles.
Since then, CAN has been used as a standard for practically every light-duty vehicle and was
being pushed even further as the “only acceptable protocol used for standardized on-board to
off-board communications for vehicles.” (US Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 243, 86.005–17, Dec
20th, 2005). Among several standards, CAN is preferred because of its simplicity, extremely low
cost, and minimal wiring requirements.
The CAN standard specifies how the various devices are interconnected. For example, it
defines how your infotainment or safety system receives messages from your (car) body control
module, or airbag, to know whether it must call home because you are in an accident. Similarly,
your active safety system receives updates from front- or rear-facing cameras and radars, inorder to know how brakes must be engaged.

Figure 2: Typical CAN-based in-vehicle network (top) and how it's electrically connected to the
CAN bus (bottom). The Microcontroller implements the "application" logic, the CAN Controller
implements the CAN logic, and the CAN Transceiver is responsible for translating logical"zeros" and "ones" into electrical signals.

According to the CAN standard, there are two wires—called CAN High (CANH) and CAN Low(CANL)—onto which all devices are attached. This is also called the CAN “bus” because it
appears like a "shared cable" running across all the various subsystems.
When one of these subsystems wants to “talk,” it writes a message (also called "frame")—properly encoded as a series of ones and zeros—onto the CAN bus.

Figure 3: Structure of a CAN frame (source: Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN_bus)
Any message circulating on the CAN bus can be read by any other device connected to the bus.
If the message is relevant to the device (e.g., RPM reading from the engine-control module), it
can take action (e.g., the infotainment turns the volume up, so music can be heard better).
Because bus errors are frequent, and because the bus is contended, any device writing a frame
onto the CAN bus is also responsible for checking the actual value on the wires. If the value
read at a certain time corresponds to the original expected value, everything proceeds.
Otherwise, if there is a mismatch, the device must immediately write an error message onto the
CAN bus in order to recall the previous frame and to notify the other devices listening that theyshould ignore it. Errors occur because of "natural" causes or because multiple devices areattempting to concurrently write on the CAN bus.
When a device starts sending too many error messages, the device itself may be
malfunctioning. Because of the reliability and speed requirements, the CAN standards mandatethat such a device must enter a so-called Bus-Off state. At this state, the device is isolated fromthe rest of the network and, as such, not allowed to read or write any data. This faultcontainment mechanism is useful in preventing a malfunctioning (or rogue) device todetrimentally affect the car’s performance.

Figure 4: States of a CAN node (TEC = Transmit Error Count, REC = Receive Error Count). The"Error Active" state is the normal state; past producing 127 errors, the node enters the "Error
Passive" state, which means that its communication capabilities are limited (for example, it can
only read and produce errors at a limited rate). When in "Bus Off" state, no communication isallowed.

Errors in the System: The Design Vulnerability Within the CAN Standard
Given how in-vehicle networks work, what are the security issues? There are several.
• First, any device connected to the CAN bus is allowed to read and write without any regulation.
There is no authentication or access control mechanism.
• Secondly, all data coming from the CAN bus is trusted because the security model assumes
that an attacker will never gain unauthorized access to the CAN bus.
• Lastly, there is no way to distinguish a genuine error message from a crafted one. In otherwords, it's impossible to know whether a device (e.g., infotainment) is truly faulty or if it's been
compromised and is now going "off bus" because of an attacker's command.
All together, these design issues have more serious consequences. Any device on the CAN bus
can craft messages such that any other one would be cut off from any communication. This is
like a selective denial-of-service (DoS) attack.

Other researchers have already demonstrated how the vulnerability in the CAN standard design
can be exploited to selectively DoS-attack specific devices. Possible attacks against the CAN
protocol have been investigated since 2010, especially frame-injection attacks.
All of the attacks demonstrated so far can be detected. This is because they need to generate
anomalous CAN frames, which stand out from typical traffic. In fact, there are even vendors
providing IDS and IPS technology for in-vehicle networks based on the principle of detecting"anomalous" CAN traffic. In other words, all of the known attacks are not stealthy, and thus canbe spotted and blocked.
However, in our attack, we demonstrate that an adversary can cause damage to in-vehicle
equipment in a very stealthy way, without the need to write any message on the CAN bus, andwith a very modest investment of US$30 (for the attack device that we connect to the target
car’s CAN bus).

Figure 5: Sample attack device and effect
Our attack device works this way: instead of injecting CAN frames like what previously
demonstrated techniques did, we reuse existing frames that are already circulating on the CAN
bus, and modify a single bit of them. More precisely, we "flip" one bit (from 1 to 0) in a specificposition such that it would induce an error, thereby forcing the device that has transmitted theoriginal frame to write an error message as required by CAN standards. The tricky part is to beable to read the right message at the right time and be fast enough to modify that single bit.

Figure 6: Attack device attack chain
We repeat this process 32 times in a row, thus triggering the CAN fault-containment
mechanism. The device goes into the Bus Off state, effectively cutting it off from any
communication.
The preconditions for our attack are the same as that of Miller & Valasek's Jeep hack. In thepresence of a remotely exploitable vulnerability (e.g., in the infotainment system), which
essentially brings the attacker to the local network, the Jeep attack would inject frames on the
CAN bus to take control of the car (e.g., accelerate or brake suddenly). Fortunately, theseframes would be easy to spot. For instance, it's not expected that the infotainment system will
try to engage the brakes or the cruise control. Without remotely exploitable vulnerabilities,
neither our attack nor the Jeep hack would be possible.
However, our attack brings up an important point. Even under the assumption that a state-ofthe-art IDS/IPS is monitoring the CAN bus, our attack is undetectable. Moreover, we show that,given the criticality of a car system, an attacker doesn't necessarily need to take active control of
the car's equipment to create life-endangering situations. Most of the time, all the attacker needs
is to disable a critical subsystem (e.g., airbag, park-assisting sensors).
Effectively detecting and blocking our attack would require changes in the standard, majorarchitectural changes in the network topology, and the redesign of in-vehicle networks. This
attack is well beyond a simple software vulnerability, which can be solved by recalling vehicles
for an upgrade or via over-the-air (OTA) upgrade.

Affected Sectors: Automotive is Just the Beginning
The automotive sector is the main sector affected by the results of our research. However, it's
not the only one. The CAN standard is widely adopted in other transportation sectors such as intrains (e.g., linking door units, brake controllers, passenger-counting units), in maritime (e.g.,controlled-by-wire ships), avionics (e.g., flight-state sensors, navigation systems), andaerospace (e.g., fuel systems, pumps), as well as in other sectors like in industry (e.g.,
packaging, semiconductor manufacturing), hospitals (e.g., lights, beds, X-Ray and otherdiagnostic machines), and building automation (e.g., elevators, doors).
While the cost model and the technical requirements in these sectors are different from those in
the automotive industry, the results of our research should be taken into account by thesecommunities.

Threat Scenarios
What kind of threats can arise if an attacker decides to mount this attack against a vehicle in thereal world, even in the presence of state-of-the-art IDS/IPS solutions? In this section we discuss
the various scenarios wherein our attack may be utilized, as well as the vectors from which it
can be executed.
Scenario 1. Active Safety System DoS
Active safety systems are beneficial, but they could create a dangerous scenario if the driver
becomes too complacent in their use. An adversary using our attack could induce specific"faults" in the CAN frames generated by the active safety systems and suddenly cause the said
systems to shut down. This may lead to vehicles failing to stop autonomously as expected bydrivers, a failure which may cause fatal accidents.
Scenario 2. Throttle DoS
CAN has been used to carry "throttle-by-wire" functionality. For instance, the 2010 Toyota Priusinternal combustion engine throttle actuator is controlled by CAN frames sent from the powermanagement control unit to the engine-control module. An adversary may use our attack
against such frames, preventing the driver from controlling throttle position and thus frommoving the vehicle. Despite not causing a direct hazardous condition, a financially motivatedattacker could leverage our stealthy DoS to mount a ransomware-like attack and later show theclassic message on the infotainment display. The car owner's first reaction would typically be tobring the car to a repair shop, which would still cause financial loss.

Scenario 3. Door Lock DoS
Most modern premium cars’ door locks are controlled by CAN frames, which are typicallyaccessible via other devices (e.g., infotainment) as well as via the OBD-II diagnostic port.
Isolating the frames responsible for locking the doors is much simpler and faster than reverseengineering active safety equipment messages. A single press of the lock-unlock button on thedriver’s door corresponds exactly to one fixed set of frames issued to the door module
actuators. Therefore, in a matter of minutes, an adversary can isolate the frames responsible fordoors locking, prepare the exploit in order to DoS-attack the locking frames, and then leave theexploit active, preventing car doors from being locked again after being unlocked.

Threat Vectors
RemotePrevious researches described as "remote car attacks" actually revolved around a chain of
remotely exploitable vulnerabilities. For example, the Jeep hack exploited vulnerabilities in theHarman Kardon Uconnect system which allowed the researchers to remotely re-flash theembedded Renesas V850ES/FJ3 microcontroller—responsible for the Uconnect CAN
communications—with an ad-hoc firmware. Once this happens, the attacker essentiallybecomes as powerful as a local attacker. Such vulnerabilities are frequently discovered,reported, and patched.

Figure 7: CAN bus attack vector map
Therefore, all of the known attacks against cars require some form of local access, either direct
or with the assistance of a remote exploit. Our attack is no different as it can be performed byre-flashing an ECU firmware or by local access to the CAN bus. The unique aspect of our attack
is its “undetectability” and the fact that there is no easy fix, like there was for previous attacks.
Local
As with previous attacks, the easiest way by which our DoS attack can be mounted is via a
crafted device attached to the OBD-II port. In most vehicles, the OBD-II port serves as a directinterface into all car internal buses, provides 12V direct current output for powering connected
devices, and is conveniently located. Therefore, in a matter of seconds, an adversary with local
access is able to install a working attack device inside a car. Real-world scenarios in which thismay happen are numerous and include, for instance, valet parking, car sharing, car renting, carlending, or self-driving car settings.

The car owner may also unknowingly be using a rogue (trojanized/counterfeited) aftermarket
OBD-II device after opting for a low-cost replacement part, looking for do-it-yourself car
diagnostics, or simply enriching car infotainment functionality.
Note that local-access attacks are by no means limited to the OBD-II diagnostic port. An
adversary may or must opt to attach and hide the attacking device anywhere along the CAN
bus. For example, think of a malicious repair shop or the installation of rogue replacement parts
that require CAN bus connections for their operation, like aftermarket infotainment units, parking
sensors modules, or anti-theft systems.

Mitigation
The challenge is to detect a forthcoming attack before the DoS has been executed, as theattacking device will not participate in any way with the CAN activity but will remain completely
silent to all other CAN devices. The following mechanisms could be implemented without any
major change or rewiring of the in-vehicle network, at the same cost of recalling a vehicle for afirmware upgrade (like what happened after the Jeep hack was disclosed).
• Power drain detection: A system or program that notifies the user of possibly-malicious
devices added to the CAN bus network through the detection of strange or added drain to thebus current, as any added device would add to the power load.
• Error determination: A system or program that can detect possibly-malicious devices throughthe nature of the error frames being sent. Malicious errors may present themselves as identicalto each other. Note that such a detection approach may erroneously flag a truly faulty device as
malicious.
Existing CAN bus IDS/IPS technologies are essentially based on the anomaly detection of
malformed frames because, in the majority of attacks, an injection of frames is needed. Our
attack, instead, is based on the transmission of bits concurrently with the transmission of alegitimate frame.
From the receiving devices’ point of view, there would simply be a frame transmissioninterrupted by an error. A frame-analysis-based IDS could only notice the effect of our attack,which is a device going Bus Off. However, this would be ineffective in mitigating the attack itself
since the detection would only take place after the fact.
We hope that the next generation of vehicles will take into account the following solutions toprevent our attack from happening.

• Network Segmentation or Topology Alteration: Create various CAN sub-buses, or change
the network topology from a bus to a star-like shape, to prevent free circulation of can frames toall devices.
• Regulated OBD-II Diagnostic Port Access: Require a special hardware key in order to open
the case where the port is physically located, or implement a software-level authentication inorder to allow traffic from and to the port. This would require a change in the regulations.
• Encryption: Encrypt CAN frame ID fields to prevent attackers from identifying CAN frames totarget, thus resulting in a noisier and much more detectable attack pattern.

Conclusion
Gaining access to someone else's vehicle has become a common situation, with many
legitimate use cases. Along with the classic scenarios and vectors (e.g., car renting or lending,valet parking, repair shop), newer scenarios and vectors are emerging (e.g., car sharing,
autonomous vehicles, pervasive ride-sharing service, availability of aftermarket infotainment or"plug 'n play" devices for car enthusiasts).
In addition, there is a sheer number of vulnerabilities found embedded in in-vehicle systems.
While the existence of vulnerabilities has been considered exceptional so far, in the near future,
this will be normal.
All of these conditions increase the probability of local attackers targeting a car. It is time thatstandardization bodies, decision makers, and car manufacturers take this shift into account andrevise the design of the cyber-physical systems that govern future automobiles.

Resources
A complete list of references for this research is available in our paper:• A Stealth, Selective, Link-Layer Denial-of-Service Attack Against Automotive Networks,
Andrea Palanca (Politecnico di Milano (Italy)); Eric Evenchick (Linklayer Labs); Federico Maggi(FTR, Trend Micro, Inc.); Stefano Zanero (Politecnico di Milano (Italy))

Trend Micro Incorporated, a global leader in security software, strives to make theworld safe for exchanging digital information. Our innovative solutions for consumers,
businesses and governments provide layered content security to protect information
on mobile devices, endpoints, gateways, servers and the cloud. All of our solutions
are powered by cloud-based global threat intelligence, the Trend Micro™ SmartProtection Network™, and are supported by over 1,200 threat experts around theglobe. For more information, visit www.trendmicro.com.
©2017 by Trend Micro, Incorporated. All rights reserved. Trend Micro and the Trend
Micro t-ball logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Trend Micro,
Incorporated. All other product or company names may be trademarks or registeredtrademarks of their owners.