Abstract:For decades, the Controller Area Network (CAN) has served as the primary in-vehicle bus (IVB) and extended its use to many non-vehicular systems. Over the past years, CAN security has been intensively scrutinized, yielding extensive research literature. Despite its wealth, the literature lacks structured systematization, complicating efforts to assess attack severity, defense efficacy, identify security gaps, or root causes. This leaves non experts uncertain about the relevancy of specific attacks or defenses to their systems, inadvertently portraying CAN as irredeemably insecure. Further, the introduction of new IVB technologies–CAN evolutions, add-ons, and alternative buses–with heightened security claims risks fostering …
Abstract:For decades, the Controller Area Network (CAN) has served as the primary in-vehicle bus (IVB) and extended its use to many non-vehicular systems. Over the past years, CAN security has been intensively scrutinized, yielding extensive research literature. Despite its wealth, the literature lacks structured systematization, complicating efforts to assess attack severity, defense efficacy, identify security gaps, or root causes. This leaves non experts uncertain about the relevancy of specific attacks or defenses to their systems, inadvertently portraying CAN as irredeemably insecure. Further, the introduction of new IVB technologies–CAN evolutions, add-ons, and alternative buses–with heightened security claims risks fostering the misconception that merely adopting these technologies resolves CAN’s security challenges. This paper systematizes existing CAN security knowledge, presenting a comprehensive taxonomy and assessment models of attackers, attacks, and defenses. It identifies replicable attacks and defense gaps, investigating their root causes as inherent, accidental, unique, or universal. It then extrapolates these insights to emerging IVB technologies by formally analyzing three emerging IVBs to identify shared root causes with CAN and assess their ability to close security gaps. The findings challenge common perceptions, demonstrating that CAN is more securable than perceived, that most insecurity root causes are shared across IVBs, and that merely adopting newer IVB technology does not solve persistent security issues. The paper concludes by highlighting future research directions to secure IVB communication down the road.
| Subjects: | Cryptography and Security (cs.CR) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2510.02960 [cs.CR] |
| (or arXiv:2510.02960v1 [cs.CR] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.02960 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration) |
Submission history
From: Khaled Serag Alsharif [view email] [v1] Fri, 3 Oct 2025 12:52:28 UTC (1,034 KB)