skip to main content
10.1145/3359789.3359847acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesacsacConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Artifacts Evaluated & Reusable

Out of control: stealthy attacks against robotic vehicles protected by control-based techniques

Published:09 December 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Robotic vehicles (RVs) are cyber-physical systems that operate in the physical world under the control of software functions. They are increasing in adoption in many industrial sectors. RVs rely on sensors and actuators for system operations and navigation. Control algorithm based estimation techniques have been used in RVs to minimize the effects of noisy sensors, prevent faulty actuator output, and recently, in detecting attacks against RVs. In this paper, we propose three kinds of attacks to evade the control-based detection techniques and cause RVs to malfunction. We also propose automated algorithms for performing the attacks without requiring the attacker to expend significant effort or know specific details of the RV, making the attacks applicable to a wide range of RVs. We demonstrate these attacks on ArduPilot simulators and two real RVs (a drone and a rover) in the presence of an Intrusion Detection System (IDS) using control estimation models to monitor the runtime behavior of the system. We find that the control models are incapable of detecting our stealthy attacks, and that the attacks can have significant adverse impact on the RV's mission (e.g., cause the RV to crash or deviate from its target significantly).

References

  1. Sridhar Adepu and Aditya Mathur. 2016. Using process invariants to detect cyber attacks on a water treatment system. In IFIP International Information Security and Privacy Conference. 91--104.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Ekta Aggarwal, Mehdi Karimibiuki, Karthik Pattabiraman, and André Ivanov. 2018. CORGIDS: A Correlation-based Generic Intrusion Detection System. In Proceedings of the 2018 Workshop on Cyber-Physical Systems Security and PrivaCy (CPS-SPC '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 24--35. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Chuadhry Mujeeb Ahmed, Jianying Zhou, and Aditya P. Mathur. 2018. Noise Matters: Using Sensor and Process Noise Fingerprint to Detect Stealthy Cyber Attacks and Authenticate Sensors in CPS. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 566--581. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. H. Alemzadeh, D. Chen, X. Li, T. Kesavadas, Z. T. Kalbarczyk, and R. K. Iyer. 2016. Targeted Attacks on Teleoperated Surgical Robots: Dynamic Model-Based Detection and Mitigation. In 2016 46th Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN). 395--406. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Maryam Raiyat Aliabadi, Amita Ajith Kamath, Julien Gascon-Samson, and Karthik Pattabiraman. 2017. ARTINALI: Dynamic Invariant Detection for Cyber-physical System Security. In Proceedings of the 2017 11th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE 2017). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 349--361. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Amazon Prime [n. d.]. Amazon Prime Delivery. Retrieved January 24, 2019 from https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Prime-Air/b?node=8037720011Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. ArduPilot [n. d.]. Ardupilot - Software in the Loop. Retrieved May 24, 2018 from http://ardupilot.org/dev/docs/sitl-simulator-software-in-the-loop.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Aryn Baker. [n. d.]. Zipline Drone Delivery. Retrieved January 24, 2019 from http://www.flyzipline.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. P.-J. Bristeau, E. Dorveaux, D. VissiÃĺre, and N. Petit. 2010. Hardware and software architecture for state estimation on an experimental low-cost small-scaled helicopter. Control Engineering Practice 18, 7 (2010), 733 -- 746. Special Issue on Aerial Robotics. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Stephen Burns. [n. d.]. Drone meets delivery truck. Retrieved May 24, 2019 from https://www.ups.com/us/es/services/knowledge-center/article.page?name=drone-meets-delivery-truck&kid=cd18bdc2Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Y. Chen, C. M. Poskitt, and J. Sun. 2018. Learning from Mutants: Using Code Mutation to Learn and Monitor Invariants of a Cyber-Physical System. In 2018 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 648--660. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Hongjun Choi, Wen-Chuan Lee, Yousra Aafer, Fan Fei, Zhan Tu, Xiangyu Zhang, Dongyan Xu, and Xinyan Deng. 2018. Detecting Attacks Against Robotic Vehicles: A Control Invariant Approach. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 801--816. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. A. Choudhari, H. Ramaprasad, T. Paul, J. W. Kimball, M. Zawodniok, B. McMillin, and S. Chellappan. 2013. Stability of a Cyber-physical Smart Grid System Using Cooperating Invariants. In 2013 IEEE 37th Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference. 760--769. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Keywhan Chung, Zbigniew T. Kalbarczyk, and Ravishankar K. Iyer. 2019. Availability Attacks on Computing Systems Through Alteration of Environmental Control: Smart Malware Approach. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems (ICCPS '19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Keywhan Chung, Xiao Li, Peicheng Tang, Zeran Zhu, Zbigniew T. Kalbarczyk, Ravishankar K. Iyer, and Thenkurussi Kesavadas. 2019. Smart Malware that Uses Leaked Control Data of Robotic Applications: The Case of Raven-II Surgical Robots. In 22nd International Symposium on Research in Attacks, Intrusions and Defenses (RAID 2019). USENIX Association, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 337--351. https://www.usenix.org/conference/raid2019/presentation/chungGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. G. Dan and H. Sandberg. 2010. Stealth Attacks and Protection Schemes for State Estimators in Power Systems. In 2010 First IEEE International Conference on Smart Grid Communications. 214--219. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Drew Davidson, Hao Wu, Rob Jellinek, Vikas Singh, and Thomas Ristenpart. 2016. Controlling UAVs with Sensor Input Spoofing Attacks. In 10th USENIX Workshop on Offensive Technologies (WOOT 16). USENIX Association, Austin, TX. https://www.usenix.org/conference/woot16/workshop-program/presentation/davidsonGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. ETH-Agile and Dexterous Robotics Lab. [n. d.]. Control Toolbox. https://ethz-adrl.github.io/ct/ct_doc/doc/html/index.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Gene F. Franklin, J. David Powell, and Abbas Emami-Naeini. 2018. Feedback Control of Dynamic Systems (8th Edition) (What's New in Engineering). Pearson. https://www.amazon.com/Feedback-Control-Dynamic-Systems-Engineering/dp/0134685717?SubscriptionId=AKIAIOBINVZYXZQZ2U3A&tag=chimbori05-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0134685717Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Luis Garcia, Ferdinand Brasser, Mehmet Hazar Cintuglu, Ahmad-Reza Sadeghi, Osama A. Mohammed, and Saman A. Zonouz. 2017. Hey, My Malware Knows Physics! Attacking PLCs with Physical Model Aware Rootkit. In NDSS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. R. M. GÃşes, E. Kang, R. Kwong, and S. Lafortune. 2017. Stealthy deception attacks for cyber-physical systems. In 2017 IEEE 56th Annual Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). 4224--4230. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. D. Halperin, T. S. Heydt-Benjamin, B. Ransford, S. S. Clark, B. Defend, W. Morgan, K. Fu, T. Kohno, and W. H. Maisel. 2008. Pacemakers and Implantable Cardiac Defibrillators: Software Radio Attacks and Zero-Power Defenses. In 2008 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (sp 2008). 129--142. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Jason Baker (Red Hat). [n. d.]. Open source drone projects. https://opensource.com/article/18/2/drone-projectsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Andrew J. Hawkins. [n. d.]. UPS will use drones to deliver medical supplies in North Carolina. Retrieved May 24, 2019 from https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/26/18282291/ups-drone-delivery-hospital-nc-matternetGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Todd E. Humphreys. 2008. Assessing the Spoofing Threat: Development of a Portable GPS Civilian Spoofer. In In Proceedings of the Institute of Navigation GNSS (ION GNSS.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Saurabh Jha, Subho S. Banerjee, Timothy Tsai, Siva Kumar Sastry Hari, Michael B. Sullivan, Zbigniew T. Kalbarczyk, Stephen W. Keckler, and Ravishankar K. Iyer. 2019. ML-based Fault Injection for Autonomous Vehicles: A Case for Bayesian Fault Injection. CoRR abs/1907.01051 (2019). arXiv:1907.01051 http://arxiv.org/abs/1907.01051Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. JSMSim [n. d.]. JSBSim Open Source Flight Dynamics Model. Retrieved May 24, 2018 from "http://jsbsim.sourceforge.net/"Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. S. Karnouskos. 2011. Stuxnet worm impact on industrial cyber-physical system security. In IECON 2011 - 37th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society. 4490--4494. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Taegyu Kim, Chung Hwan Kim, Junghwan Rhee, Fan Fei, Zhan Tu, Gregory Walkup, Xiangyu Zhang, Xinyan Deng, and Dongyan Xu. 2019. RVFuzzer: Finding Input Validation Bugs in Robotic Vehicles through Control-Guided Testing. In 28th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 19). USENIX Association, Santa Clara, CA, 425--442. https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity19/presentation/kimGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Robert M. Lee, Michael J. Assante, and Tim Conway. 2016. Analysis of the Cyber Attack on the Ukrainian Power Grid. Technical Report. Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC) (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. J. Li and Y. Li. 2011. Dynamic analysis and PID control for a quadrotor. In 2011 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation. 573--578. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Yao Liu, Peng Ning, and Michael K. Reiter. 2009. False Data Injection Attacks Against State Estimation in Electric Power Grids. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 21--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. K. Manandhar, X. Cao, F. Hu, and Y. Liu. 2014. Detection of Faults and Attacks Including False Data Injection Attack in Smart Grid Using Kalman Filter. IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems 1, 4 (Dec 2014), 370--379. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. MATLAB. [n. d.]. System Identification Overview. ([n. d.]). https://www.mathworks.com/help/ident/gs/about-system-identification.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. MATLAB. [n. d.]. System Identification Toolbox. ([n. d.]). https://www.mathworks.com/products/sysid.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. S. McLaughlin and S. Zonouz. 2014. Controller-aware false data injection against programmable logic controllers. In 2014 IEEE International Conference on Smart Grid Communications (SmartGridComm). 848--853. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Lorenz Meier, Petri Tanskanen, Friedrich Fraundorfer, and Marc Pollefeys. 2011. Pixhawk: A system for autonomous flight using onboard computer vision. In 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, 2992--2997.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. MARS 2020 Mission. [n. d.]. MARS Exploration Rover. https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/mission/rover/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Robert Mitchell and Ing-Ray Chen. 2012. Specification based intrusion detection for unmanned aircraft systems. In Proceedings of the first ACM MobiHoc workshop on Airborne Networks and Communications (2012), 31--36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Robert Mitchell and Ing-Ray Chen. 2014. Adaptive intrusion detection of malicious unmanned air vehicles using behavior rule specifications. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems 44, 5 (2014), 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. GNU Octave. [n. d.]. GNU Octave Scientific Programming Language. https://www.gnu.org/software/octave/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Out of Control. [n. d.]. Artificial Delay Attack Demo Video. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1_CHITopKSraKZXnAIyeUoQZqki8fgUXeGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Out of Control. [n. d.]. False Data Injection Attack Demo Video. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1JgrCpwspsBiYdNvKUxeKnl-bZQ9WS_CgGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Out of Control. [n. d.]. Switch Mode Attack Demo Video. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1yUSGa5GoBQYl0GTiTbcPFN5NnjBHXL-YGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Hadi Ravanbakhsh, Sina Aghli, Christoffer Heckman, and Sriram Sankaranarayanan. 2018. Path-Following through Control Funnel Functions. CoRR abs/1804.05288 (2018). arXiv:1804.05288 http://arxiv.org/abs/1804.05288Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Brent A. Renfro, Miquela Stein, Nicholas Boeker, Emery Reed, and Eduardo Villalba. [n. d.]. An Analysis of Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Positioning Service (SPS) Performance for 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Aion Robotics. [n. d.]. R1 ArduPilot Edition. https://docs.aionrobotics.com/en/latest/r1-ugv.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. H. Sakoe and S. Chiba. 1978. Dynamic programming algorithm optimization for spoken word recognition. IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing 26, 1 (February 1978), 43--49. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Nicolas Sheilds. [n. d.]. Walmart Drone Delivery. Retrieved December 09, 2018 from https://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-blockchain-drone-delivery-patent-2018-9Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Yasser Shoukry, Paul Martin, Paulo Tabuada, and Mani Srivastava. 2013. Non-invasive Spoofing Attacks for Anti-lock Braking Systems. In Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems - CHES 2013, Guido Bertoni and Jean-Sebastien Coron (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 55--72.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Yunmok Son, Hocheol Shin, Dongkwan Kim, Youngseok Park, Juhwan Noh, Kibum Choi, Jungwoo Choi, and Yongdae Kim. 2015. Rocking Drones with Intentional Sound Noise on Gyroscopic Sensors. In 24th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 15). USENIX Association, Washington, D.C., 881--896. https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity15/technical-sessions/presentation/sonGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Christopher Steiner. [n. d.]. Bot-In-Time Delivery. https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0316/040_bot_time_saves_nine.html#68ee53d9b942Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. ArduPilot Development Team. [n. d.]. Building ArduPilot. https://github.com/ArduPilot/ardupilot/blob/master/BUILD.mdGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Paparazzi Development Team. [n. d.]. Paparazzi - The Free Autopilot. https://wiki.paparazziuav.org/wiki/Main_PageGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Pixhawk Development Team. [n. d.]. Pixhawk AutoPilot. https://docs.px4.io/en/flight_controller/pixhawk_series.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Nils Ole Tippenhauer, Christina Pöpper, Kasper Bonne Rasmussen, and Srdjan Capkun. 2011. On the Requirements for Successful GPS Spoofing Attacks. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 75--86. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. T. Trippel, O. Weisse, W. Xu, P. Honeyman, and K. Fu. 2017. WALNUT: Waging Doubt on the Integrity of MEMS Accelerometers with Acoustic Injection Attacks. In 2017 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS P). 3--18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Zhaolin Yang, Feng Lin, and B. M. Chen. 2016. Survey of autopilot for multi-rotor unmanned aerial vehicles. In IECON 2016 - 42nd Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society. 6122--6127. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Out of control: stealthy attacks against robotic vehicles protected by control-based techniques

      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
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        ACSAC '19: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference
        December 2019
        821 pages
        ISBN:9781450376280
        DOI:10.1145/3359789

        Copyright © 2019 ACM

        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: 9 December 2019

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        ACSAC '19 Paper Acceptance Rate60of266submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate104of497submissions,21%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader