skip to main content
research-article

DT-DS: CAN Intrusion Detection with Decision Tree Ensembles

Published:22 March 2023Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The controller area network (CAN) protocol, used in many modern vehicles for real-time inter-device communications, is known to have cybersecurity vulnerabilities, putting passengers at risk for data exfiltration and control system sabotage. To address this issue, researchers have proposed to utilize security measures based on cryptography and message authentication; unfortunately, such approaches are often too computationally expensive to be deployed in real time on CAN devices. Additionally, they have developed machine learning (ML) techniques to detect anomalies in CAN traffic and thereby prevent attacks. The main disadvantage of existing ML-based techniques is that they either depend on additional computational hardware or they heuristically assume that all communication anomalies are malicious.

In this article, we show that tree-based learning ensembles outperform anomaly-based techniques like AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) and Z-Score when used to detect attacks that result in increased bus utilization. We evaluated the detection capacity of three tree-based ensembles, Adaboost, gradient boosting, and random forests, and collectively refer to these as DT-DS. We conclude that the decision tree ensemble with Adaboost performs best with an area under curve (AUC) score of 0.999, closely followed by gradient boosting and random forests with 0.997 and 0.991 AUC scores, respectively, when trained using message profiles. We observe that with an increase in the observation window, the DT-DS models present an average AUC score of 0.999, and offer a nearly perfect detection of attacks, at the cost of increased latency in detection of attacked messages. We evaluate the performance of the IDS for Aeronautical Radio, Incorporated– (ARINC) encoded CAN communication traffic in avionic systems, generated using an aerospace testbench, ARINC-825TBv2. The IDS has been evaluated against the active attacks of a state-of-the-art predictive attacker model. Additionally, we observed that the performance of IDS approaches such as ARIMA and Z-Score degrade considerably with a decrease in the size of the observation time window. In contrast, the performance of DT-DS models is consistent, with only an average drop of 0.005 in the AUC score.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] ARINC Specification 825. Standard. ARINC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. [2] FlightGear Flight Simulator. Retrieved from https://www.flightgear.org/about/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. [3] 2018. White paper using CAN bus serial communications in space flight applications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. [4] Alhomoud Adeeb, Munir Rashid, Disso Jules Pagna, Awan Irfan, and Al-Dhelaan A.. 2011. Performance evaluation study of intrusion detection systems. Proc. Comput. Sci. 5 (2011), 173180. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. [5] Ansari M. R., Yu S., and Yu Q.. 2015. IntelliCAN: Attack-resilient controller area network (CAN) for secure automobiles. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Defect and Fault Tolerance in VLSI and Nanotechnology Systems (DFTS’15). 233236. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. [6] Avatefipour O., Hafeez A., Tayyab M., and Malik H.. 2017. Linking received packet to the transmitter through physical-fingerprinting of controller area network. In Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on Information Forensics and Security (WIFS’17). 16. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. [7] Boudguiga Aymen, Klaudel Witold, Boulanger Antoine, and Chiron Pascal. 2016. A simple intrusion detection method for controller area network. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC’16). 17. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. [8] Bozdal Mehmet, Samie Mohammad, Aslam Sohaib, and Jennions I.K.. 2020. Evaluation of CAN bus security challenges. Sensors 20 (042020), 1617. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. [9] Buttigieg Robert, Farrugia Mario, and Meli Clyde. 2017. Security issues in controller area networks in automobiles. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Sciences and Techniques of Automatic Control and Computer Engineering (STA). 9398. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. [10] Chandwani Ashwin, Dey Saikat, and Mallik Ayan. 2020. Cybersecurity of onboard charging systems for electric vehicles—Review, challenges and countermeasures. IEEE Access (122020), 11. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. [11] Checkoway Stephen, McCoy Damon, Kantor Brian, Anderson Danny, Shacham Hovav, Savage Stefan, Koscher Karl, Czeskis Alexei, Roesner Franziska, and Kohno Tadayoshi. 2011. Comprehensive experimental analyses of automotive attack surfaces. In Proceedings of the 20th USENIX Conference on Security (SEC’11). USENIX Association, Berkeley, CA, 6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. [12] Chen Weiwei, Kong Fangang, Mei Feng, Yuan Guiqin, and Li Bo. 2017. A novel unsupervised anomaly detection approach for intrusion detection system. In Proceedings of the IEEE 3rd International Conference on Big Data Security on Cloud (Bigdatasecurity’17), IEEE International Conference on High Performance and Smart Computing (HPSC’17), and IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Data and Security (IDS’17). 6973. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. [13] Cheng Lilly. 2019. Basic Ensemble Learning (Random Forest, AdaBoost, Gradient Boosting): Step by Step Explained. Retrieved from https://towardsdatascience.com/basic-ensemble-learning-random-forest-adaboost-gradient-boosting-step-by-step-explained-95d49d1e2725.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. [14] Cho Kyong-Tak and Shin Kang G.. 2016. Error handling of in-vehicle networks makes them vulnerable. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 10441055. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. [15] Choi W., Joo K., Jo H. J., Park M. C., and Lee D. H.. 2018. VoltageIDS: Low-level communication characteristics for automotive intrusion detection system. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forens. Secur. 13, 8 (2018), 21142129. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. [16] Enev Miro, Takakuwa Alex, Koscher Karl, and Kohno Tadayoshi. 2016. Automobile driver fingerprinting. Proc. Priv. Enhanc. Technol. 2016 (012016). DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. [17] Farivar Cyrus. 2015. FBI: Researcher Admitted to Hacking Plane In-flight, Causing it to “Climb.” Retrieved from https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/05/fbi-researcher-admitted-to-hacking-plane-in-flight-causing-it-to-climb/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. [18] Freund Yoav and Schapire Robert E.. 1997. A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 55, 1 (August1997), 119139. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. [19] Gmiden M., Gmiden M. H., and Trabelsi H.. 2016. An intrusion detection method for securing in-vehicle CAN bus. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Sciences and Techniques of Automatic Control and Computer Engineering (STA’16). 176180. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. [20] Groza Bogdan and Murvay Pal-Stefan. 2019. Efficient intrusion detection with bloom filtering in controller area networks. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forens. Secur. 14, 4 (2019), 10371051. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. [21] Groza Bogdan, Murvay Stefan, Herrewege Anthony Van, and Verbauwhede Ingrid. 2017. LiBrA-CAN: Lightweight broadcast authentication for controller area networks. ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst. 16, 3, Article 90 (April2017), 28 pages. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. [22] Haass Jon C., Craiger J. Philip, and Kessler Gary C.. 2018. A framework for aviation cybersecurity. In Proceedings of the IEEE National Aerospace and Electronics Conference (NAESON’18). 132136. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. [23] Automation CAN in. 1999. CANopen application layer and communication profile.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. [24] Inc. KvaserCAN Bus Error Handling. Retrieved from https://www.kvaser.com/about-can/the-can-protocol/can-error-handling/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. [25] Inc. KvaserAn Overview of ARINC. Retrieved from https://www.kvaser.com/arinc/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. [26] Instruments National. Controller Area Network (CAN) Overview. Technical Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. [27] Kang Ki-Dong, Baek Youngmi, Lee Seonghun, and Son Sang Hyuk. 2017. An attack-resilient source authentication protocol in controller area network. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Architectures for Networking and Communications Systems (ANCS’17). IEEE Press, 109118. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. [28] Kang M. and Kang J.. 2016. A novel intrusion detection method using deep neural network for in-vehicle network security. In Proceedings of the IEEE 83rd Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Spring’16). 15. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. [29] Kiley Patrick. 2019. Investigating CAN Bus Network Integrity in Avionics Systems. Retrieved from https://www.rapid7.com/research/report/investigating-can-bus-network-integrity-in-avionics-systems/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. [30] Knueppel Ralph. 2012. Standardization of CAN networks for airborne use through ARINC 825.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. [31] Koscher Karl, Czeskis Alexei, Roesner Franziska, Patel Shwetak, Kohno Tadayoshi, Checkoway Stephen, McCoy Damon, Kantor Brian, Anderson Danny, Shacham Hovav, et al. 2010. Experimental security analysis of a modern automobile. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP’10). IEEE, 447462.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. [32] Kukkala Vipin Kumar, Thiruloga Sooryaa Vignesh, and Pasricha Sudeep. 2020. INDRA: Intrusion detection using recurrent autoencoders in automotive embedded systems. arxiv:cs.CR/2007.08795. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.08795.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. [33] Kumar Gulshan. 2014. Evaluation metrics for intrusion detection systems—A study. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Mobile Appl. (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. [34] Kuwahara T., Baba Yukino, Kashima H., Kishikawa T., Tsurumi Jun’ichi, Haga T., Ujiie Y., Sasaki Takamitsu, and Matsushima Hideki. 2018. Supervised and unsupervised intrusion detection based on CAN message frequencies for in-vehicle network. J. Inf. Process. 26 (2018), 306313.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. [35] Kwon Donghwoon, Park Suwoo, and Ryu Jeong-Tak. 2017. A study on big data thinking of the internet of things-based smart-connected car in conjunction with controller area network bus and 4G-long term evolution. Symmetry 9, 8 (2017). DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. [36] Larson Ulf E., Nilsson Dennis K., and Jonsson Erland. 2008. An approach to specification-based attack detection for in-vehicle networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium. 220225. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. [37] Lin C. and Sangiovanni-Vincentelli A.. 2012. Cyber-security for the controller area network (CAN) communication protocol. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Cyber Security. 17. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. [38] Ling Congli and Feng Dongqin. 2012/11. An algorithm for detection of malicious messages on CAN buses. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Information Technology and Computer Science. Atlantis Press, 627630. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. [39] Longari S., Valcarcel D. H. N., Zago M., Carminati M., and Zanero S.. 2020. CANnolo: An anomaly detection system based on LSTM autoencoders for controller area network. IEEE Trans. Netw. Serv. Manage. (2020), 11. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. [40] Mahfouzi Rouhollah, Aminifar Amir, Eles Petru, Peng Zebo, and Villani Mattias. 2016. Intrusion-damage assessment and mitigation in cyber-physical systems for control applications. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Real-Time Networks and Systems (RTNS’16). 141150.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. [41] Mahfouzi Rouhollah, Aminifar Amir, Samii Soheil, Payer Mathias, Eles Petru, and Peng Zebo. 2019. Butterfly attack: Adversarial manipulation of temporal properties of cyber-physical systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS’19).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. [42] Marchetti M. and Stabili D.. 2017. Anomaly detection of CAN bus messages through analysis of ID sequences. In Proceedings of the IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV’17). 15771583. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. [43] McHugh John. 2000. Testing intrusion detection systems: A critique of the 1998 and 1999 darpa intrusion detection system evaluations as performed by lincoln laboratory. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 3, 4 (November2000), 262294. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. [44] Miller Charlie and Valasek Chris. A Survey of Remote Automotive Attack Surfaces. Technical Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. [45] Mola Francesco. 1998. Classification and regression trees software and new developments. In Advances in Data Science and Classification, Rizzi Alfredo, Vichi Maurizio, and Bock Hans-Hermann (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, 311318.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. [46] Moore Michael R., Bridges Robert A., Combs Frank L., Starr Michael S., and Prowell Stacy J.. 2017. Modeling inter-signal arrival times for accurate detection of CAN bus signal injection attacks: A data-driven approach to in-vehicle intrusion detection. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference on Cyber and Information Security Research (CISRC’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, Article 11, 4 pages. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. [47] Mukherjee Subhojeet, Shirazi Hossein, Ray Indrakshi, Daily Jeremy, and Gamble Rose. 2016. Practical DoS attacks on embedded networks in commercial vehicles. In Information Systems Security, Ray Indrajit, Gaur Manoj Singh, Conti Mauro, Sanghi Dheeraj, and Kamakoti V. (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2342.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. [48] Müter M. and Asaj N.. 2011. Entropy-based anomaly detection for in-vehicle networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV’11). 11101115. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. [49] Nadiammai G. V. and Hemalatha M.. 2014. Effective approach toward intrusion detection system using data mining techniques. Egypt. Inf. J. 15, 1 (2014), 3750. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. [50] Nilsson Dennis K., Larson Ulf E., and Jonsson Erland. 2008. Efficient in-vehicle delayed data authentication based on compound message authentication codes. In Proceedings of the IEEE 68th Vehicular Technology Conference. 15. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. [51] Pedregosa F., Varoquaux G., Gramfort A., Michel V., Thirion B., Grisel O., Blondel M., Prettenhofer P., Weiss R., Dubourg V., Vanderplas J., Passos A., Cournapeau D., Brucher M., Perrot M., and Duchesnay E.. 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12 (2011), 28252830.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. [52] Perrig Adrian, Szewczyk Robert, Wen Victor, Culler David, and Tygar J. D.. 2001. SPINS: Security protocols for sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom’01). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 189199. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. [53] Powers David. 2008. Evaluation: From precision, recall and F-factor to ROC, informedness, markedness & correlation. Mach. Learn. Technol. 2 (012008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. [54] Sagstetter Florian, Andalam Sidharta, Waszecki Peter, Lukasiewycz Martin, Stähle Hauke, Chakraborty Samarjit, and Knoll Alois. 2014. Schedule integration framework for time-triggered automotive architectures. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM/EDAC/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC’14).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. [55] Sen Jaydip and Mehtab Sidra. 2020. Machine learning applications in misuse and anomaly detection. In Security and Privacy From a Legal, Ethical, and Technical Perspective. IntechOpen. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. [56] Shoukry Y., Martin P., Tabuada P., and Srivastava M.. 2013. Non-invasive spoofing attacks for anti-lock braking systems. In Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 8086. Springer, Berlin.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. [57] Smith Taylor G. et al. 2017–. pmdarima: ARIMA estimators for Python. Retrieved from http://www.alkaline-ml.com/pmdarima.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. [58] Song H. M., Kim H. R., and Kim H. K.. 2016. Intrusion detection system based on the analysis of time intervals of CAN messages for in-vehicle network. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Networking (ICOIN’16). 6368. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. [59] Staggs Jason. 2013. How to Hack Your Mini Cooper: Reverse Engineering Controller Area Network CAN Messages on Passenger Automobiles. Retrieved May 13, 2021 from https://doi.org/10.5446/38934Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. [60] Studnia Ivan, Nicomette Vincent, Alata Eric, Deswarte Yves, Kaâniche Mohamed, and Laarouchi Youssef. 2013. Survey on security threats and protection mechanisms in embedded automotive networks. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual IEEE/IFIP Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks Workshop (DSN-W’13). 112. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. [61] Systems Stock Flight. CANaerospace. Retrieved from https://www.stockflightsystems.com/canaerospace.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. [62] Taylor A., Japkowicz N., and Leblanc S.. 2015. Frequency-based anomaly detection for the automotive CAN bus. In Proceedings of the World Congress on Industrial Control Systems Security (WCICSS’15). 4549. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. [63] Texas Instruments 2016. Introduction to the Controller Area Network(CAN). Retrieved from https://www.ti.com/lit/an/sloa101b/sloa101b.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. [64] Tomlinson A., Bryans J., Shaikh S. A., and Kalutarage H. K.. 2018. Detection of automotive CAN cyber-attacks by identifying packet timing anomalies in time windows. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks Workshops (DSN-W’18). 231238. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. [65] Young Clinton, Olufowobi Habeeb, Bloom Gedare, and Zambreno Joseph. 2019. Automotive intrusion detection based on constant CAN message frequencies across vehicle driving modes. In Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Automotive Cybersecurity (AutoSec’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 914. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. [66] Young Clinton, Zambreno Joseph, Olufowobi Habeeb, and Bloom Gedare. 2019. Survey of automotive controller area network intrusion detection systems. IEEE Des. Test 36, 6 (2019), 4855. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. [67] Yu Derek, Vaquier Michael, Laflamme Evan, Doucette-Poirier Gabrielle, Tremblay Justin, and Meyer Brett H.. 2019. ARINC-825TBv2: A hardware-in-the-ioop simulation platform for aerospace security research. In Proceedings of the 30th International Workshop on Rapid System Prototyping (RSP’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 2935.DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. [68] Zhang Jiong and Zulkernine Mohammad. 2006. Anomaly based network intrusion detection with unsupervised outlier detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Communications, Vol. 5. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. DT-DS: CAN Intrusion Detection with Decision Tree Ensembles

      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

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems
        ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems  Volume 7, Issue 1
        January 2023
        187 pages
        ISSN:2378-962X
        EISSN:2378-9638
        DOI:10.1145/3582896
        • Editor:
        • Chenyang Lu
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        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: 22 March 2023
        • Online AM: 21 January 2023
        • Accepted: 14 September 2022
        • Revised: 18 April 2022
        • Received: 1 July 2021
        Published in tcps Volume 7, Issue 1

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)245
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)9

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Full Text

      View this article in Full Text.

      View Full Text

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format