In Search of Synergies in a Multi-concern Development Lifecycle: Safety and Cybersecurity
The complexity of developing embedded electronic systems has been increasing especially in the automotive domain due to recently added functional requirements concerning e.g., connectivity. The development of these systems becomes even more complex for products - such as connected automated driving systems – where several different quality attributes (such as functional safety and cybersecurity) need to also be taken into account. In these cases, there is often a need to adhere to several standards simultaneously, each addressing a unique quality attribute. In this paper, we analyze potential synergies when working with both a functional safety standard (ISO 26262) and a cybersecurity standard (first working draft of ISO/SAE 21434). The analysis is based on a use case developing a positioning component for the automotive domain. The results regarding the use of multi-concern development lifecycle is on a high level, since most of the insights into co-engineering presented in this paper is based on process modeling. The main findings of our analysis show that on the design-side of the development lifecycle, the big gain is completeness of the analysis when considering both attributes together, but the overlap in terms of shared activities is small. For the verification-side of the lifecycle, much of the work and infrastructure can be shared when showing fulfillment of the two standards ISO 26262 and ISO/SAE 21434.
KeywordsFunctional safety Cybersecurity Automotive Co-engineering Multi-concern
This work is supported by the EU and VINNOVA via the ECSEL Joint Undertaking project AMASS (No 692474), but the contents of the paper only reflect the authors views.
- 1.ISO 26262:2011 - Road vehicles – Functional safety. https://www.iso.org/standard/43464.html
- 2.IEC 61508:2010 - Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems. http://www.iec.ch/functionalsafety/
- 3.Gallina, B., Sljivo, I., Jaradat, O.: Towards a safety-oriented process line for enabling reuse in safety critical systems development and certification. In: 2012 35th Annual IEEE Software Engineering Workshop, pp. 148–157 (2012)Google Scholar
- 4.ISO/SAE AWI 21434 - Road Vehicles – Cybersecurity engineering. https://www.iso.org/standard/70918.html
- 5.About | AMASS. https://www.amass-ecsel.eu/
- 6.Ruiz, A., Gallina, B., de la Vara, J.L., Mazzini, S., Espinoza, H.: Architecture-driven, multi-concern and seamless assurance and certification of cyber-physical systems. In: Skavhaug, A., Guiochet, J., Schoitsch, E., Bitsch, F. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2016. LNCS, vol. 9923, pp. 311–321. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45480-1_25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Papyrus. https://www.eclipse.org/papyrus/
- 8.Beaton, W.: OpenCert. https://www.polarsys.org/projects/polarsys.opencert
- 9.Vedder, B., Vinter, J., Jonsson, M.: Accurate positioning of bicycles for improved safety. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE), pp. 1–6 (2018)Google Scholar
- 10.Macher, G., Sporer, H., Berlach, R., Armengaud, E., Kreiner, C.: SAHARA: a security-aware hazard and risk analysis method. In: 2015 Design, Automation Test in Europe Conference Exhibition (DATE), pp. 621–624 (2015)Google Scholar
- 11.Schmittner, C., Gruber, T., Puschner, P., Schoitsch, E.: Security application of failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA). In: Bondavalli, A., Di Giandomenico, F. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2014. LNCS, vol. 8666, pp. 310–325. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10506-2_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Sangchoolie, B., Folkesson, P., Vinter, J.: A study of the interplay between safety and security using model-implemented fault injection. In: EDCC 2018: 14th European Dependable Computing Conference (2018)Google Scholar