skip to main content
research-article
Free Access
Just Accepted

Performance comparison of timing-based anomaly detectors for Controller Area Network: a reproducible study

Online AM:15 June 2023Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This work presents an experimental evaluation of the detection performance of eight different algorithms for anomaly detection on the Controller Area Network (CAN) bus of modern vehicles based on the analysis of the timing or frequency of CAN messages. This work solves the current limitations of related scientific literature, that is based on private dataset, lacks of open implementations, and detailed description of the detection algorithms. These drawback prevent the reproducibility of published results, and makes it impossible to compare a novel proposal against related work, thus hindering the advancement of science. This paper solves these issues by publicly releasing implementations, labeled datasets and by describing an unbiased experimental comparisons.

References

  1. M. Bozdal, M. Samie, and I. Jennions. 2018. A Survey on CAN Bus Protocol: Attacks, Challenges, and Potential Solutions. In 2018 International Conference on Computing, Electronics Communications Engineering (iCCECE). 201–205. https://doi.org/10.1109/iCCECOME.2018.8658720Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. V. Chandola, A. Banerjee, and V. Kumar. 2012. Anomaly detection for discrete sequences: A survey. IEEE Trans. on Knowledge and Data Engineering 24, 5(2012).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. K.T. Cho and K. G. Shin. 2016. Fingerprinting Electronic Control Units for Vehicle Intrusion Detection. In USENIX Security Symposium.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. K. T. Cho and K. G. Shin. 2017. Viden: Attacker Identification on In-Vehicle Networks. arXiv 1109.1123.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. G. Dupont, J. den Hartog, S. Etalle, and A. Lekidis. 2019. A survey of network intrusion detection systems for controller area network. In 2019 IEEE Int’l Conf. on Vehicular Electronics and Safety.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Robert Bosch GmbH. 1991. CAN Specification Version 2.0. Tech. Rep.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. M. Gmiden, M. H. Gmiden, and H. Trabelsi. 2016. An intrusion detection method for securing in-vehicle CAN bus. In 2016 17th International Conference on Sciences and Techniques of Automatic Control and Computer Engineering (STA). 176–180. https://doi.org/10.1109/STA.2016.7952095Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. H. J. Jo and W. Cho2016Fingerprinting. 2021. A Survey of Attacks on Controller Area Networks and Corresponding Countermeasures. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems (2021), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2021.3078740Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Ken Tindell. [n. d.]. Canis Automotive Labs - The CANPico Board. https://kentindell.github.io/canpicoGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. M. Kneib and C. Huth. 2018. Scission: Signal Characteristic-Based Sender Identification and Intrusion Detection in Automotive Networks. In Proc. 2018 ACM SIGSAC Conf. on Computer and Communications Security. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Sekar Kulandaivel, Tushar Goyal, Arnav Kumar Agrawal, and Vyas Sekar. 2019. CANvas: Fast and Inexpensive Automotive Network Mapping. In 28th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 19). USENIX Association, Santa Clara, CA, 389–405. https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity19/presentation/kulandaivelGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. H. Lee, K. Choi, K. Chung, J. Kim, and K. Yim. 2015. Fuzzing CAN Packets into Automobiles. In 2015 IEEE 29th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 817–821. https://doi.org/10.1109/AINA.2015.274Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. H. Lee, S. H. Jeong, and H. K. Kim. 2017. OTIDS: A Novel Intrusion Detection System for In-vehicle Network by Using Remote Frame. In 2017 15th Annual Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust (PST), Vol.  00. 57–5709. https://doi.org/10.1109/PST.2017.00017Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. C. Ling. 2012. An Algorithm for Detection of Malicious Messages on CAN Buses. In Conf. Innovative Trends in Computer Science.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. M. Marchetti and D. Stabili. 2017. Anomaly detection of CAN bus messages through analysis of ID sequences. In IEEE Proc. Intelligent Vehicles Symp.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. M. Marchetti, D. Stabili, A. Guido, and M. Colajanni. 2016. Evaluation of anomaly detection for in-vehicle networks through information-theoretic algorithms. In IEEE 2nd Int’l Forum Research and Technologies for Society and Industry Leveraging a better tomorrow.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. C. Miller and C. Valasek. 2014. Adventures in Automotive Networks and Control Units. https://www.ioactive.com/pdfs/IOActive_Adventures_in_Automotive_Networks_and_Control_Units.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. C. Miller and C. Valasek. 2015. Remote Exploitation of an Unaltered Passenger Vehicle. http://illmatics.com/Remote Car Hacking.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. M. R. Moore, R. A. Bridges, F. L. Combs, M. S. Starr, and S. J. Prowell. 2017. Modeling inter-signal arrival times for accurate detection of CAN bus signal injection attacks. In CISRC ’17 Proc. 12th Annual Conf. on Cyber and Information Security Research.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. M. Müter and N. Asaj. 2011. Entropy-based anomaly detection for in-vehicle networks. In IEEE Proc. Intelligent Vehicles Symp.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. N. Nowdehi, W. Aoudi, M. Almgren, and T. Olovsson. 2019. CASAD: CAN-Aware Stealthy-Attack Detection for In-Vehicle Networks.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Habeeb Olufowobi, Clinton Young, Joseph Zambreno, and Gedare Bloom. 2020. SAIDuCANT: Specification-Based Automotive Intrusion Detection Using Controller Area Network (CAN) Timing. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology 69, 2 (2020), 1484–1494. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVT.2019.2961344Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. S. Otsuka, T. Ishigooka, Y. Oishi, and K. Sasazawa. 2014. CAN Security: Cost-Effective Intrusion Detection for Real-Time Control Systems. In SAE 2014 World Congress and Exhibition. 11. https://doi.org/10.4271/2014-01-0340Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. PEAK System. 2015. PCAN-USB. Technical Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. F. Pollicino, D. Stabili, and M. Marchetti. [n. d.]. Material used for the submission at ACM TCPS - Special Issue. https://weblab.ing.unimore.it/people/stabili/resources/tcps.shtml password: PSM_TCPS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. H.M. Song, H. R. Kim, and H. K. Kim. 2016. Intrusion detection system based on the analysis of time intervals of CAN messages for in-vehicle network. In 2016 International Conference on Information Networking (ICOIN). 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICOIN.2016.7427089Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. D. Stabili, L. Ferretti, M. Andreolini, and M. Marchetti. 2021. DAGA: Detecting Attacks to in-vehicle networks via n-Gram Analysis. arXiv 0000.0000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. D. Stabili and M. Marchetti. 2019. Detection of Missing CAN Messages through Inter-Arrival Time Analysis. In 2019 IEEE 90th Vehicular Technology Conf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. D. Stabili, M. Marchetti, and M. Colajanni. 2017. Detecting attacks to internal vehicle networks through Hamming distance. In AEIT Int’l Annual Conf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. A. Taylor, N. Japkowicz, and S. Leblanc. 2015. Frequency-based anomaly detection for the automotive CAN bus. In 2015 World Congress on Industrial Control Systems Security (WCICSS). 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1109/WCICSS.2015.7420322Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. A. Tomlinson, J Bryans, and S. A. Shaikh. 2021. Using internal context to detect automotive controller area network attacks. Computers and Electrical Engineering 91 (2021), 107048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2021.107048Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in

Full Access

  • Published in

    cover image ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems
    ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems Just Accepted
    ISSN:2378-962X
    EISSN:2378-9638
    Table of Contents

    Copyright © 2023 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Online AM: 15 June 2023
    • Accepted: 9 April 2023
    • Revised: 16 March 2022
    • Received: 1 July 2021
    Published in tcps Just Accepted

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)203
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)31

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader