Vehicle Cybersecurity Testing Across Multiple Communication Buses

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing cybersecurity vulnerability testing methods for vehicles are inefficient and require significant operator intervention, lacking uniformity and scalability across different types of vehicles, and are not effectively integrated into the software development lifecycle.

Innovation Solution

A testing device with multiple interface devices and a test module storage system that performs cybersecurity vulnerability tests on vehicle components via various communication buses, using a centralized repository for test distribution and threat intelligence to prioritize and automate testing, enabling platform-independent and uniform testing across different vehicles.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Ease of operation

If traditional cybersecurity vulnerability testing methods are used, then operator intervention is required to perform tests, but this increases the complexity of operation and reduces productivity

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveoperator intervention requirementVSAvoidtesting efficiency
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The testing system performs vulnerability tests automatically without requiring operator intervention. The system self-manages the entire testing process including selecting test modules, executing tests through multiple interface devices, and generating reports, thereby resolving the contradiction between ease of operation and productivity

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

Test modules are pre-configured and stored in a centralized repository before actual testing. The system prepares testing configurations, test data, and module selections in advance, allowing automated execution without operator intervention during the actual testing phase, thus improving both ease of operation and productivity

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

2Adaptability or versatility

If traditional vulnerability testing is performed, then testing can be conducted on vehicle components, but the process lacks uniformity and scalability across different vehicle types

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveuniformity across vehicle typesVSAvoidtesting consistency
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The testing system employs multiple interface devices that can communicate with different vehicle components through various communication buses (CAN, LIN, Ethernet, etc.). The same test modules can be executed across different vehicle types and components, providing universal adaptability while maintaining consistent and reliable testing through standardized procedures

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Solution Approach 2:

The testing system divides vulnerability assessment into separate, modular test modules that can be independently selected and executed. Each interface device handles specific communication protocols, allowing the system to adapt to different vehicle types while maintaining uniform testing standards through modular, reusable test components

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

3Reliability

If comprehensive vulnerability testing is performed across multiple vehicle components, then security coverage is improved, but the time required for testing increases significantly

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesecurity coverageVSAvoidtesting duration
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The testing system executes multiple vulnerability tests simultaneously across different vehicle components through parallel processing. Multiple interface devices operate concurrently to test different components, maintaining continuous testing action that improves security coverage without proportionally increasing total testing time

Inventive Principle:
Principle #20Continuity of useful action

Solution Approach 2:

The system prioritizes and selects specific test modules based on threat intelligence and vehicle criticality. Rather than executing every possible test on every component, the system performs targeted testing that provides sufficient security coverage for critical components while reducing unnecessary testing time on less critical systems

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

4Extent of automation

If manual vulnerability testing is performed, then specific test cases can be executed, but the process lacks automation and requires significant operator intervention

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvetesting automation levelVSAvoidsystem configuration complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Extent of automationVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The testing system introduces a centralized repository as an intermediary between test module storage and execution. This repository manages test module metadata, dependencies, and configurations, automatically selecting and preparing appropriate test modules without requiring operators to manually configure complex test setups, thereby increasing automation while managing system complexity

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Data Source

PatentEP4456485B1Vehicle vulnerability testing
Publication Date: 2026.02.11 THE BOEING CO
  • EP4456485B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP4456485B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP4456485B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

A testing device includes a first interface device configured to enable communication with a first component of a vehicle and a second interface device configured to enable communication with a second component of the vehicle. The testing device includes a test module storage configured to store one or more test modules and also includes a user interface and a test controller. The test controller is responsive to the user interface to select a test module from the test module storage and to cause the first interface device to communicate first test data to the first component of the vehicle and to cause the second interface device to communicate second test data to the second component of the vehicle to perform a vulnerability test associated with the selected test module.