skip to main content
10.1145/3243734.3243752acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Detecting Attacks Against Robotic Vehicles: A Control Invariant Approach

Published:15 October 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Robotic vehicles (RVs), such as drones and ground rovers, are a type of cyber-physical systems that operate in the physical world under the control of computing components in the cyber world. Despite RVs' robustness against natural disturbances, cyber or physical attacks against RVs may lead to physical malfunction and subsequently disruption or failure of the vehicles' missions. To avoid or mitigate such consequences, it is essential to develop attack detection techniques for RVs. In this paper, we present a novel attack detection framework to identify external, physical attacks against RVs on the fly by deriving and monitoring Control Invariants (CI). More specifically, we propose a method to extract such invariants by jointly modeling a vehicle's physical properties, its control algorithm and the laws of physics. These invariants are represented in a state-space form, which can then be implemented and inserted into the vehicle's control program binary for runtime invariant check. We apply our CI framework to eleven RVs, including quadrotor, hexarotor, and ground rover, and show that the invariant check can detect three common types of physical attacks -- including sensor attack, actuation signal attack, and parameter attack -- with very low runtime overhead.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

p801-choi.mp4

mp4

410.6 MB

References

  1. Martín Abadi, Mihai Budiu, Úlfar Erlingsson, and Jay Ligatti. 2005. Control-flow integrity. In the 12th ACM conference. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 340--353. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Alireza Abbaspour, Kang K Yen, Shirin Noei, and Arman Sargolzaei. 2016. Detection of fault data injection attack on uav using adaptive neural network. Procedia computer science 95 (2016), 193--200.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Amazon Prime Air Delivery 2016. Amazon Prime Air. https://www.amazon. com/Amazon-Prime-Air/b?node=8037720011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. ArduPilot 2017. ArduPilot :: Home. http://ardupilot.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. ArduPilot Dev Team 2016. SITL Simulator (Software in the Loop). http://ardupilot. org/dev/docs/sitl-simulator-software-in-the-loop.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Stanley Bak, Karthik Manamcheri, Sayan Mitra, and Marco Caccamo. 2011. Sandboxing controllers for cyber-physical systems. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE/ACM Second International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems. IEEE Computer Society, 3--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Jason Bau and John C Mitchell. 2011. Security modeling and analysis. IEEE Security & Privacy 9, 3 (2011), 18--25. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. George A Bekey. 1970. System identification-an introduction and a survey.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Samir Bouabdallah, Pierpaolo Murrieri, and Roland Siegwart. 2004. Design and control of an indoor micro quadrotor. In Robotics and Automation, 2004. Proceedings. ICRA'04. 2004 IEEE International Conference on, Vol. 5. IEEE, 4393-- 4398.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Bryan Buck and Jeffrey K Hollingsworth. 2000. An API for runtime code patching. The International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications 14, 4 (2000), 317--329. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Stephen Checkoway, Damon McCoy, Brian Kantor, Danny Anderson, Hovav Shacham, Stefan Savage, Karl Koscher, Alexei Czeskis, Franziska Roesner, Tadayoshi Kohno, et al. 2011. Comprehensive Experimental Analyses of Automotive Attack Surfaces.. In USENIX Security Symposium. San Francisco. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Feng Chen and Grigore Rosu. 2007. Mop: an efficient and generic runtime verification framework. In Acm Sigplan Notices, Vol. 42. ACM, 569--588. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Yuqi Chen, Christopher M Poskitt, and Jun Sun. 2018. Learning from Mutants: Using Code Mutation to Learn and Monitor Invariants of a Cyber-Physical System. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.00903 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Abraham A Clements, Naif Saleh Almakhdhub, Khaled S Saab, Prashast Srivastava, Jinkyu Koo, Saurabh Bagchi, and Mathias Payer. 2017. Protecting Bare-metal Embedded Systems With Privilege Overlays. In Security and Privacy (SP), 2017 IEEE Symposium on. IEEE, 289--303.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. CNN 2012. Self-driving cars now legal in California. http://www.cnn.com/2012/ 09/25/tech/innovation/self-driving-car-california/index.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Frederick B Cohen. 1993. Operating system protection through program evolution. Computers & Security 12, 6 (1993), 565--584. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. comma.ai 2018. commaai/openpilot: open source driving agent. https://github. com/commaai/openpilot.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Crispan Cowan, Calton Pu, Dave Maier, Jonathan Walpole, Peat Bakke, Steve Beattie, Aaron Grier, Perry Wagle, Qian Zhang, and Heather Hinton. 1998. Stackguard: Automatic adaptive detection and prevention of buffer-overflow attacks.. In USENIX Security Symposium, Vol. 98. San Antonio, TX, 63--78. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Ang Cui, Michael Costello, and Salvatore J Stolfo. 2013. When Firmware Modifications Attack: A Case Study of Embedded Exploitation. (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Ang Cui and Salvatore J Stolfo. 2011. Defending embedded systems with software symbiotes. In International Workshop on Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection. Springer, 358--377. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Drew Davidson, Hao Wu, Robert Jellinek, Vikas Singh, and Thomas Ristenpart. 2016. Controlling UAVs with Sensor Input Spoofing Attacks.. In WOOT. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Onur Demir, Wenjie Xiong, Faisal Zaghloul, and Jakub Szefer. 2016. Survey of Approaches for Security Verification of Hardware/Software Systems. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2016 (2016), 846.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Demo Video 2018. Attack Case 1: Sensor Spoofing Attack on IRIS+. https: //bit.ly/2Kb6TcK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Demo Video 2018. Attack Case 2: Control Signal Attack on IRIS+. https: //bit.ly/2Ka5PpG.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Demo Video 2018. Attack Case 3: Control Parameter Corruption Attack on IRIS+. https://bit.ly/2LQTTOo.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Demo Video 2018. Attack Case 4: Control Parameter Corruption Attack on Erle-Rover. https://bit.ly/2LBpK6l.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Demo Video 2018. Attack Case 5: Motor Input Spoofing Attack on Erle-Rover. https://bit.ly/2LFPKOk.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Demo Video 2018. Attack Case 6: Sensor Manipulation Attack on Erle-Rover. https://bit.ly/2NXJDRQ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Michael D Ernst, Jake Cockrell, William G Griswold, and David Notkin. 2001. Dynamically discovering likely program invariants to support program evolution. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 27, 2 (2001), 99--123. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Fan Fei, Zhan Tu, Ruikun Yu, Taegyu Kim, Xiangyu Zhang, Dongyan Xu, and Xinyan Deng. 2018. Cross-Layer Retrofitting of UAVs Against Cyber-Physical Attacks. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA 2018).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Paul M Frank. 1990. Fault diagnosis in dynamic systems using analytical and knowledge-based redundancy: A survey and some new results. automatica 26, 3 (1990), 459--474. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Wei Gao and Thomas H Morris. 2014. On cyber attacks and signature based intrusion detection for modbus based industrial control systems. The Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law: JDFSL 9, 1 (2014), 37.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Guoxiang Gu and Pramod P Khargonekar. 1992. A class of algorithms for identification in H?. Automatica 28, 2 (1992), 299--312. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Kate Highnam, Kevin Angstadt, Kevin Leach,WestleyWeimer, Aaron Paulos, and Patrick Hurley. 2016. An uncrewed aerial vehicle attack scenario and trustworthy repair architecture. In Dependable Systems and Networks Workshop, 2016 46th Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on. IEEE, 222--225.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Todd E Humphreys, Brent M Ledvina, Mark L Psiaki, Brady W O'Hanlon, and PaulMKintner Jr. 2008. Assessing the spoofing threat: Development of a portable GPS civilian spoofer. In Proceedings of the ION GNSS international technical meeting of the satellite division, Vol. 55. 56.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Galen Hunt and Doug Brubacher. 1999. Detours: Binary Interception of Win32 Functions. In 3rd usenix windows nt symposium. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. IEEE 2014. Cyber-attack detection based on controlled invariant sets. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Rob Millerb Ishtiaq Roufa, Hossen Mustafaa, Sangho Ohb Travis Taylora, Wenyuan Xua, Marco Gruteserb,Wade Trappeb, and Ivan Seskarb. 2010. Security and privacy vulnerabilities of in-car wireless networks: A tire pressure monitoring system case study. In 19th USENIX Security Symposium, Washington DC. 11--13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. JSBSim 2009. JSBSim Open Source Flight Dynamics Model. http://jsbsim. sourceforge.net/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Khurum Nazir Junejo and Jonathan Goh. 2016. Behaviour-based attack detection and classification in cyber physical systems using machine learning. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM International Workshop on Cyber-Physical System Security. ACM, 34--43. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Sanmeet Kaur and Maninder Singh. 2013. Automatic attack signature generation systems: A review. IEEE Security & Privacy 11, 6 (2013), 54--61. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Ahmed Khurshid,Wenxuan Zhou, MatthewCaesar, and P Godfrey. 2012. Veriflow: Verifying network-wide invariants in real time. In Proceedings of the first workshop on Hot topics in software defined networks. ACM, 49--54. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Chung Hwan Kim, Taegyu Kim, Hongjun Choi, Zhongshu Gu, Byoungyoung Lee, Xiangyu Zhang, and Dongyan Xu. 2018. Securing Real-Time Microcontroller Systems through Customized Memory View Switching. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS '18). The Internet Society.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Fanxin Kong, Meng Xu, James Weimer, Oleg Sokolsky, and Insup Lee. 2018. Cyber-physical system checkpointing and recovery. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems. IEEE Press, 22--31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Karl Koscher, Alexei Czeskis, Franziska Roesner, Shwetak Patel, Tadayoshi Kohno, Stephen Checkoway, Damon McCoy, Brian Kantor, Danny Anderson, Hovav Shacham, et al. 2010. Experimental security analysis of a modern automobile. In Security and Privacy (SP), 2010 IEEE Symposium on. IEEE, 447--462. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Denis Foo Kune, John Backes, Shane S Clark, Daniel Kramer, Matthew Reynolds, Kevin Fu, Yongdae Kim, and Wenyuan Xu. 2013. Ghost talk: Mitigating EMI signal injection attacks against analog sensors. (2013), 145--159. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Michael A Laurenzano, Mustafa M Tikir, Laura Carrington, and Allan Snavely. 2010. Pebil: Efficient static binary instrumentation for linux. In Performance Analysis of Systems & Software (ISPASS), 2010 IEEE International Symposium on. IEEE, 175--183.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Lennart Ljung. 1991. Issues in system identification. IEEE Control systems 11, 1 (1991), 25--29.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. MATLAB 2017. System Identification Toolbox - MATLAB. https://www. mathworks.com/products/sysid.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Mario Milanese and Gustavo Belforte. 1982. Estimation theory and uncertainty intervals evaluation in presence of unknown but bounded errors: Linear families of models and estimators. IEEE Transactions on automatic control 27, 2 (1982), 408--414.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Military.com 2018. Drones | Military.com. http://www.military.com/equipment/ drones.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Robert Mitchell and Ray Chen. 2014. Adaptive intrusion detection of malicious unmanned air vehicles using behavior rule specifications. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems 44, 5 (2014), 593--604.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Robert Mitchell and Ray Chen. 2015. Behavior rule specification-based intrusion detection for safety critical medical cyber physical systems. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing 12, 1 (2015), 16--30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Yilin Mo and Bruno Sinopoli. 2010. False data injection attacks in control systems. (01 2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Nicholas Nethercote and Julian Seward. 2007. Valgrind: a framework for heavyweight dynamic binary instrumentation. ACM Sigplan notices 42, 6 (2007), 89. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Katsuhiko Ogata and Yanjuan Yang. 2002. Modern control engineering. Vol. 4. Prentice hall India. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Open Source Robotics Foundation 2014. Gazebo. http://gazebosim.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Young-Seok Park, Yunmok Son, Hocheol Shin, Dohyun Kim, and Yongdae Kim. 2016. This Ain't Your Dose: Sensor Spoofing Attack on Medical Infusion Pump.. In WOOT. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Jonathan Petit, Bas Stottelaar, Michael Feiri, and Frank Kargl. 2015. Remote attacks on automated vehicles sensors: Experiments on camera and lidar. Black Hat Europe 11 (2015), 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Lee Pike, Pat Hickey, Trevor Elliott, Eric Mertens, and Aaron Tomb. 2016. Trackos: A security-aware real-time operating system. In International Conference on Runtime Verification. Springer, 302--317.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. Ales Prochazka, NG Kingsbury, PJW Payner, and J Uhlir. 2013. Signal analysis and prediction. Springer Science & Business Media. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. PX4 Dev Team 2017. Open Source for Drones - PX4 Pro Open Source Autopilot. http://px4.io/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Lawrence R Rabiner and Biing-Hwang Juang. 1993. Fundamentals of speech recognition. Vol. 14. PTR Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. ROS 2017. ROS.org | Powering the world's robots. http://www.ros.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. Grigore Roşu, Wolfram Schulte, and Traian Florin Serbanuta. 2009. Runtime verification of C memory safety. In InternationalWorkshop on Runtime Verification. Springer, 132--151. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Hiroaki Sakoe and Seibi Chiba. 1978. Dynamic programming algorithm optimization for spoken word recognition. IEEE transactions on acoustics, speech, and signal processing 26, 1 (1978), 43--49.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. Hovav Shacham, Matthew Page, Ben Pfaff, Eu-Jin Goh, Nagendra Modadugu, and Dan Boneh. 2004. On the effectiveness of address-space randomization. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM conference on Computer and communications security. ACM, 298--307. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. Qikun Shen, Bin Jiang, Peng Shi, and Cheng-Chew Lim. 2014. Novel neural networks-based fault tolerant control scheme with fault alarm. IEEE transactions on cybernetics 44, 11 (2014), 2190--2201.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Yasser Shoukry, Paul Martin, Paulo Tabuada, and Mani Srivastava. 2013. Noninvasive spoofing attacks for anti-lock braking systems. In InternationalWorkshop on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems. Springer, 55--72. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Sergei Skorobogatov. 2009. Local heating attacks on Flash memory devices. In Hardware-Oriented Security and Trust, 2009. HOST'09. IEEE InternationalWorkshop on. IEEE, 1--6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. Sooel Son, Seungwon Shin, Vinod Yegneswaran, Phillip Porras, and Guofei Gu. 2013. Model checking invariant security properties in OpenFlow. In Communications (ICC), 2013 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 1974--1979.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  72. Yunmok Son, Hocheol Shin, Dongkwan Kim, Young-Seok Park, Juhwan Noh, Kibum Choi, Jungwoo Choi, Yongdae Kim, et al. 2015. Rocking Drones with Intentional Sound Noise on Gyroscopic Sensors.. In USENIX Security Symposium. 881--896. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Storm Prediction Center, NOAA / NationalWeather Service 2017. Beaufort Wind Scale. http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/beaufort.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. The Guardian 2016. First passenger drone makes its debut at CES. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/07/ first-passenger-drone-makes-world-debut.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. Nils Ole Tippenhauer, Christina Pöpper, Kasper Bonne Rasmussen, and Srdjan Capkun. 2011. On the requirements for successful GPS spoofing attacks. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Computer and communications security. ACM, 75--86. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. Timothy Trippel, Ofir Weisse, Wenyuan Xu, Peter Honeyman, and Kevin Fu. 2017. WALNUT: Waging doubt on the integrity of mems accelerometers with acoustic injection attacks. In Security and Privacy (EuroS&P), 2017 IEEE European Symposium on. IEEE, 3--18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. ZhengboWang, KangWang, Bo Yang, Shangyuan Li, and Aimin Pan. 2017. SONIC GUN TO SMART DEVICES. Black Hat USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. Jon S Warner and Roger G Johnston. 2002. A simple demonstration that the global positioning system (GPS) is vulnerable to spoofing. Journal of Security Administration 25, 2 (2002), 19--27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. Waymo 2017. Waymo (formerly the Google self-driving car project). https: //waymo.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. Chen-Wei Xu and Yong-Zai Lu. 1987. Fuzzy model identification and self-learning for dynamic systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 17, 4 (1987), 683--689.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  81. Man-Ki Yoon, Bo Liu, Naira Hovakimyan, and Lui Sha. 2017. VirtualDrone: virtual sensing, actuation, and communication for attack-resilient unmanned aerial systems. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems. ACM, 143--154. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  82. Man-Ki Yoon, Sibin Mohan, Jaesik Choi, Jung-Eun Kim, and Lui Sha. 2013. SecureCore: A multicore-based intrusion detection architecture for real-time embedded systems. In Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium (RTAS), 2013 IEEE 19th. IEEE, 21--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  83. Feng Zhu and Jinpeng Wei. 2014. Static analysis based invariant detection for commodity operating systems. Computers & Security 43 (2014), 49--63.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  84. Christopher Zimmer, Balasubramanya Bhat, Frank Mueller, and Sibin Mohan. 2010. Time-based intrusion detection in cyber-physical systems. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM/IEEE International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems. ACM, 109--118. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Detecting Attacks Against Robotic Vehicles: A Control Invariant Approach

      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
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CCS '18: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
        October 2018
        2359 pages
        ISBN:9781450356930
        DOI:10.1145/3243734

        Copyright © 2018 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

        • Published: 15 October 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        CCS '18 Paper Acceptance Rate134of809submissions,17%Overall Acceptance Rate1,261of6,999submissions,18%

        Upcoming Conference

        CCS '24
        ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
        October 14 - 18, 2024
        Salt Lake City , UT , USA

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader