Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using Threat Analysis Techniques to Guide Formal Verification: A Case Study of Cooperative Awareness Messages

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM 2019)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 11724))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Autonomous robotic systems such as Connected and Autonomous Vehicle (CAV) systems are both safety-and security-critical, since a breach in system security may impact safety. Generally, safety and security concerns for such systems are treated separately during the development process. In this paper, we consider an algorithm for sending Cooperative Awareness Messages (CAMs) between vehicles in a CAV system and the use of CAMs in preventing vehicle collisions. We employ threat analysis techniques that are commonly used in the cyber security domain to guide our formal verification. This allows us to focus our formal methods on those security properties that are particularly important and to consider both safety and security in tandem. Our analysis centres on identifying STRIDE security properties and we illustrate how these can be formalised, and subsequently verified, using a combination of formal tools for distinct aspects, namely Promela/SPIN and Dafny.

This work is supported by grant EP/R026092 (FAIR-SPACE Hub) through UKRI under the Industry Strategic Challenge Fund (ISCF) for Robotics and AI Hubs in Extreme and Hazardous Environments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    We used version 6.4.6 of SPIN.

  2. 2.

    We used version 2.2.0 of Dafny.

  3. 3.

    Artefacts available at: https://github.com/mariefarrell/CAMVerification.git.

  4. 4.

    This only occurs at initialisation when the speed of the other vehicle is 0.

  5. 5.

    We chose 100 as a value but we could easily have chosen some other value.

References

  1. Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS): Vehicular Communications, Basic Set of Applications. Part 2: Specification of Cooperative Awareness Basic Service. Standard Draft ETSI EN 302 637–2, European Telecommunications Standards Institute, November 2018. V1.4.0 (2018–08)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Back, R.-J.: A calculus of refinements for program derivations. Acta Informatica 25(6), 593–624 (1988)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Barnett, M., Chang, B.-Y.E., DeLine, R., Jacobs, B., Leino, K.R.M.: Boogie: a modular reusable verifier for object-oriented programs. In: de Boer, F.S., Bonsangue, M.M., Graf, S., de Roever, W.-P. (eds.) FMCO 2005. LNCS, vol. 4111, pp. 364–387. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11804192_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Ben-Ari, M.: Principles of the Spin model checker. Springer, Cham (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-770-1

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Bittl, S., Gonzalez, A.A., Myrtus, M., Beckmann, H., Sailer, S., Eissfeller, B.: Emerging attacks on VANET security based on GPS time spoofing. In: IEEE Conference on Communications and Network Security, pp. 344–352. IEEE (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Choi, J., Jin, S.: Security threats in connected car environment and proposal of in-vehicle infotainment-based access control mechanism. In: Park, J.J., Loia, V., Choo, K.-K.R., Yi, G. (eds.) MUE/FutureTech -2018. LNEE, vol. 518, pp. 383–388. Springer, Singapore (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1328-8_49

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. de Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Z3: an efficient SMT solver. In: Ramakrishnan, C.R., Rehof, J. (eds.) TACAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4963, pp. 337–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78800-3_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Farrell, M., Luckcuck, M., Fisher, M.: Robotics and integrated formal methods: necessity meets opportunity. In: Furia, C.A., Winter, K. (eds.) IFM 2018. LNCS, vol. 11023, pp. 161–171. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98938-9_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Fisher, M.: An Introduction to Practical Formal Methods Using Temporal Logic. Wiley, Hoboken (2011)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Holzmann, G.J.: The Spin Model Checker: Primer and Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Huang, L., Kang, E.-Y.: Formal verification of safety and security related timing constraints for a cooperative automotive system. In: Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering. LNCS, vol. 11424, pp. 210–227. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16722-6_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Jagielski, M., Jones, N., Lin, C.-W., Nita-Rotaru, C., Shiraishi, S.: Threat detection for collaborative adaptive cruise control in connected cars. In: ACM Conference on Security & Privacy in Wireless and Mobile Networks, pp. 184–189. ACM (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Jones, C.B.: Tentative steps toward a development method for interfering programs. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 5(4), 596–619 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kamali, M., Linker, S., Fisher, M.: Modular verification of vehicle platooning with respect to decisions, space and time. In: Artho, C., Ölveczky, P.C. (eds.) FTSCS 2018. CCIS, vol. 1008, pp. 18–36. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12988-0_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Kohnfelder, L., Garg, P.: The threats to our products (April 1999). https://adam.shostack.org/microsoft/The-Threats-To-Our-Products.docx. Accessed 10 Dec 2018

  16. Langenstein, B., Vogt, R., Ullmann, M.: The use of formal methods for trusted digital signature devices. In: Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society, pp. 336–340. AAAI Press (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Leino, K.R.M.: Dafny: an automatic program verifier for functional correctness. In: Clarke, E.M., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6355, pp. 348–370. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17511-4_20

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Liu, J., Yan, C., Xu, W.: Can you trust autonomous vehicles: contactless attacks against sensors of self-driving vehicles. In: DEFCON24 (2016). http://bit.ly/2EQNOLs

  19. Luckcuck, M., Farrell, M., Dennis, L., Dixon, C., Fisher, M.: Formal Specification and Verification of Autonomous Robotic Systems: A Survey. ACM Computing Surveys, US (2019). accepted

    Google Scholar 

  20. Michele Rondinone, A.C.: Deliverable (d) no: 5.1 definition of v2x message sets. report, Universidad Miguel Hernandez, V1.0 27/08/2018 (August 2018)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Morgan, C., Robinson, K., Gardiner, P.: On the Refinement Calculus. Springer, Cham (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-3273-8

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Petit, J., Stottelaar, B., Feiri, M., Kargl, F.: Remote attacks on automated vehicles sensors: experiments on camera and lidar. Black Hat Eur. 11, 2015 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: 18th Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 46–57. IEEE (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ross, R.S.: Guide for conducting risk assessments. Technical report, National Institute of Standards and Technology. SP 800–30 Rev. 1 (September 2012)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ruddle, A., et al.: Security requirements for automotive on-board networks based on dark-side scenarios. EVITA Deliverable D 2, 3 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Santa, J., Pereñíguez, F., Moragón, A., Skarmeta, A.F.: Vehicle-to-infrastructure messaging proposal based on CAM/DENM specifications. In: Wireless Days (WD), IFIP, pp. 1–7. IEEE (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Schneider, S.: Formal analysis of a non-repudiation protocol. In: Computer Security Foundations Workshop, pp. 54–65. IEEE (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Schneider, S.: Verifying authentication protocols in CSP. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 24(9), 741–758 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Schneider, S., Delicata, R.: Verifying security protocols: an application of CSP. In: Abdallah, A.E., Jones, C.B., Sanders, J.W. (eds.) Communicating Sequential Processes. The First 25 Years. LNCS, vol. 3525, pp. 243–263. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11423348_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Snook, C., Hoang, T.S., Butler, M.: Analysing security protocols using refinement in iUML-B. In: Barrett, C., Davies, M., Kahsai, T. (eds.) NFM 2017. LNCS, vol. 10227, pp. 84–98. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57288-8_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Stallings, W., Brown, L., Bauer, M.D., Bhattacharjee, A.K.: Computer Security: Principles and Practice. Pearson, Upper Saddle River (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Vanspauwen, G., Jacobs, B.: Verifying protocol implementations by augmenting existing cryptographic libraries with specifications. In: Calinescu, R., Rumpe, B. (eds.) SEFM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9276, pp. 53–68. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22969-0_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Whitefield, J., et al.: Formal analysis of V2X revocation protocols. In: Livraga, G., Mitchell, C. (eds.) STM 2017. LNCS, vol. 10547, pp. 147–163. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68063-7_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

    Marie Farrell, Michael Fisher, Louise A. Dennis & Clare Dixon

  2. Cyber Security Centre, WMG, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

    Matthew Bradbury, Hu Yuan & Carsten Maple

Authors
  1. Marie Farrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew Bradbury
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Fisher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Louise A. Dennis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Clare Dixon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hu Yuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Carsten Maple
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie Farrell .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Peter Csaba Ölveczky

  2. University of Grenoble Alpes, Montbonnot, France

    Gwen Salaün

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Farrell, M. et al. (2019). Using Threat Analysis Techniques to Guide Formal Verification: A Case Study of Cooperative Awareness Messages. In: Ölveczky, P., Salaün, G. (eds) Software Engineering and Formal Methods. SEFM 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11724. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30446-1_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30446-1_25

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-30445-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-30446-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation