Verifying data secure flow in AUTOSAR models

  • Cinzia BernardeschiEmail author
  • Marco Di Natale
  • Gianluca Dini
  • Maurizio Palmieri
Original Paper


This paper presents an approach for enhancing the design phase of AUTOSAR models when security annotations are required. The approach is based on information flow analysis and abstract interpretation. The analysis evaluates the correctness of the model by assessing if the flow of data is secure with respect to causal data dependencies within the model. To find these dependencies an exhaustive search through the model would be required. Abstract interpretation is used as a trade-off between the precision and complexity of the analysis. The approach also provides annotated models without oversizing the set of annotations.


AUTOSAR Security Information flow Static analysis 



The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees for their useful comments and suggestions. This work has been developed under the framework of the H2020 European project SAFURE, Safety And Security By Design For Interconnected Mixed-Critical Cyber-Physical Systems, under Grant No. 644080.


  1. 1.
    Adelsbach, A., Huber, U., Sadeghi, A.: Secure software delivery and installation in embedded systems. In: Lemke, K., Paar, C., Wolf, M. (eds.) Embedded Security in Cars, pp. 27–49. Springer, Berlin (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Avvenuti, M., Bernardeschi, C., De Francesco, N., Masci, P.: Jcsi: a tool for checking secure information flow in java card applications. J. Syst. Softw. 85(11), 24792493 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Banerjee, A., Naumann, D.A.: Secure information flow and pointer confinement in a java-like language. In: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE Workshop on Computer Security Foundations, CSFW’02, p. 253, Washington, DC, USA (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barbuti, R., Bernardeschi, C., De Francesco, N.: Abstract interpretation of operational semantics for secure information flow. Inf. Process. Lett. 83(2), 101–108 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bell, D.E., LaPadula, L.J.: Secure Computer Systems: Mathematical Foundation. In: MITRE Technical Report 2547, Volume I (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bernardeschi, C., De Francesco, N., Lettieri, G., Martini, L.: Checking secure information flow in java bytecode by code transformation and standard bytecode verification. Softw. Pract. Exp. 34(13), 1225–1255 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bernardeschi, C., Del Vigna, G., Di Natale, M., Dini, G., Varano, D.: Using autosar high-level specifications for the synthesis of security components in automotive systems. In: Hodicky, J. (ed.) International Working on Modelling and Simulation for Autonomous Systems, pp. 101–117. Springer, Berlin (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bernardeschi, C., Di Natale, M., Dini, G., Varano, D.: Modeling and generation of secure component communications in autosar. In: The 32nd ACM SIGAPP Symposium On Applied Computing. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Checkoway, S., McCoy, D., Kantor, B., Anderson, D., Shacham, H., Savage, S., Koscher, K., Czeskis, A., Roesner, F., Kohno, T., et al.: Comprehensive experimental analyses of automotive attack surfaces. In: USENIX Security Symposium. San Francisco (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cousot, P., Cousot, R.: Abstract interpretation frameworks. J. Logic Comput. 4(2), 511–547 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Denning, P.J., Denning, D.E.: Certification of programs for secure information flow. Commun. ACM 7(20), 504–513 (1977)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    Jürjens, J.: UMLsec: extending UML for secure systems development. In: Jézéquel, J.-M., Hussmann, H., Cook, S. (eds.) UML 2002–The Unified Modeling Language, pp. 412–425. Springer, Berlin (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kehr, S., Pani, M., Quiones, E., Bddeker, B., Sandoval, J.B., Abella, J., Cazorla, F.J., Schfer, G.: Supertask: maximizing runnable-level parallelism in autosar applications. In: 2016 Design, Automation Test in Europe Conference Exhibition (DATE), pp. 25–30 (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kienberger, J., Minnerup, P., Kuntz, S., Bauer, B.: Analysis and validation of autosar models. In: Proceedings of the 2Nd International Conference on Model-Driven Engineering and Software Development, MODELSWARD 2014, pp. 274–281, Portugal (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Koscher, K., Czeskis, A., Roesner, F., Patel, S., Kohno, T., Checkoway, S., McCoy, D., Kantor, B., Anderson, D., Shacham, H., et al.: Experimental security analysis of a modern automobile. In: 2010 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), pp. 447–462. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leino, K.R.M., Joshi, R.: A semantic approach to secure information flow. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference, Mathematics of Program Construction, LNCS 1422, pp. 254–271. Springer, Berlin (1998)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lemke, K., Paar, C., Wolf, M.: Embedded Security in Cars. Springer, Berlin (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lin, C., Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A.: Cyber-security for the controller area network (can) communication protocol. In: 2012 International Conference on Cyber Security, pp. 1–7. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lodderstedt, T., Basin, D., Doser, J.: SecureUML: A UML-based modeling language for model-driven security. In: UML 2002—The Unified Modeling Language 2002, pp. 426–441. Springer, Berlin (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Macher, G., Stolz, M., Armengaud, E., Kreiner, C.: Filling the gap between automotive systems, safety, and software engineering. e & i Elektrotechnik und Informationstechnik 132(3), 142–148 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    MISRA: Guidelines for the Use of the C Language in Vehicle Based Software. Motor Industry Research Association, Nuneaton (1998)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mizuno, D., Schmidt, M.: A security flow control algorithm and its denotational semantics correctness proof. Form. Asp. Comput. 4(1), 727–754 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pani, M., Kehr, S., Quiones, E., Boddecker, B., Abella, J., Cazorla, F.J.: Runpar: An allocation algorithm for automotive applications exploiting runnable parallelism in multicores. In: 2014 International Conference on Hardware/Software Codesign and System Synthesis (CODES+ISSS), pp. 1–10 (2014)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Saad, C., Bauer, B.: Model-Driven Engineering Languages and Systems. MODELS 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. In: Moreira, A., Schätz, B., Gray, J., Vallecillo, A., Clarke, P. (eds.) Data-Flow Based Model Analysis and Its Applications, vol. 8107, pp. 707–723. Springer, Berlin (2013)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Saadatmand, M., Leveque, T.: Modeling security aspects in distributed real-time component-based embedded systems. In: 2012 Ninth International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations (ITNG), pp. 437–444. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sabelfeld, A., Mayers, A.C.: Language-based information-flow security. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 21(1), 5–19 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sabelfeld, A., Sands, D.: Programming Languages and Systems. ESOP 1999. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. In: Swierstra, S.D. (ed.) A Per Model of Secure Information Flow in Sequential Programs, vol. 1576, pp. 40–58. Springer, Berlin (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stephan, W., Richter, S., Muller, M.: Aspects of secure vehicle software flashing. In: Lemke, K., Paar, C., Wolf, M. (eds.) Embedded Security in Cars, pp. 17–26. Springer, Berlin (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Volpano, D., Smith, G., Irvine, C.: A Sound Type System for Secure Flow Analysis. J. Comput. Secur. 4(3), 167–187 (1992)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wyglinski, A.M., Huang, X., Padir, T., Lai, L., Eisenbarth, T.R., Venkatasubramanian, K.: Security of autonomous systems employing embedded computing and sensors. Micro IEEE 33(1), 80–86 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zdancewic, S., Myers, A.C.: Secure information flow and cps. In: Proceedings of the 10th European Symposium on Programming Languages and Systems, ESOP’01, pp. 46–61, London, UK (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information EngineeringUniversity of PisaPisaItaly
  2. 2.Scuola Superiore Sant’AnnaPisaItaly
  3. 3.Department of Information EngineeringUniversity of FlorenceFirenzeItaly

Personalised recommendations