In-Vehicle Software Integrity Checks With Risk-Based Verification Timing
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing techniques for verifying the integrity of software in integrated ECUs of automobiles struggle to preferentially verify high-risk software at appropriate timings, leading to increased verification time and reduced real-time performance.
Innovation Solution
An integrity verification device that determines adaptive verification timings and priorities for software in an in-vehicle network system, allowing preferential verification of high-risk software based on vehicle states and detected anomalies.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If verification is performed for all software at fixed intervals, then verification coverage is improved, but verification time and processing load increase
Solution Approach 1:
The verification interval is changed from a fixed static value to a dynamic value that adapts based on software risk level. High-risk software is verified at shorter intervals while low-risk software is verified at longer intervals, optimizing both coverage and time efficiency
Solution Approach 2:
Different verification strategies are applied to different software components based on their individual risk characteristics. Critical safety-related software receives more frequent verification while non-critical software receives less frequent verification
2Reliability
If verification frequency is increased for high-risk software, then security is improved, but processing load increases
Solution Approach 1:
The verification resource allocation is differentiated by software risk level. High-risk software receives concentrated verification resources and frequent checks, while low-risk software receives minimal verification, achieving security improvement without proportional increase in overall processing load
Solution Approach 2:
The verification interval parameter is changed based on software risk classification. By adjusting this parameter dynamically, the system achieves better security for critical software while managing overall processing load through longer intervals for non-critical software
3Reliability
If verification scope is expanded to include all software parts, then verification completeness is improved, but verification time increases
Solution Approach 1:
The verification scope is differentiated by software risk level. For high-risk software, the verification scope is expanded to include comprehensive checks of all critical parts, while for low-risk software, the verification scope is limited to essential functions only
Data Source
AI summary
An integrity verification device, in which software is executed by one of one or more electronic control units connected to an in-vehicle network system, includes: a verification schedule determiner that determines a verification timing at which to verify the integrity of the software; an integrity verifier that, for the software, determines, at the verification timing determined for the software, whether first integrity information, that is information for verifying the integrity of the software and that corresponds to at least part of the software corresponding to a verification scope, matches second integrity information, that is information calculated from at least part of the software at the verification timing, and determines that the integrity of the software is ensured when the first integrity information and the second integrity information match; and a verification priority determiner that determines a verification priority that affects determining of the verification timing or the verification scope.