✭ " />
Global Automotive Cybersecurity Report


Global Automotive Cybersecurity Report

Standards, Regulations, and the Connected Vehicle Ecosystem

OBD Port
The supply chain as an attack vector
Autonomous Vehicles
Chapter 4: Cyber Attacks’ Impacts on the Automotive Industry
Cyber attacks’ financial and reputational impact
Data and privacy breaches
Car thefts and break-ins
Financial impact on insurance providers
Chapter 5: What’s Hiding in the Deep and Dark Web?
What is the deep and dark web?
What occurs in the deep and dark web?
Messaging Applications
Looking into the future
The world against the dark web
Monitoring the deep and dark web
Chapter 6: Automotive Cybersecurity Solution Landscape
Evolving solutions
Securing the vehicle’s full lifecycle
Protecting against attacks in the supply chain
Implementing a multi-layered cybersecurity solution
Developing an effective VSOC
Staying one step ahead of the threats with automotive-specific threat intelligence
Benefits to OEMs
Benefits to Tier-1 and 2 suppliers
Benefits to CISOs
Benefits to VSOC Analysts
Benefits to insurance companies
Benefits to shared mobility and rental car stakeholders
Complying with automotive cybersecurity regulations
Upstream’s Cybersecurity and Data Management Platform
The Upstream Platform
AutoThreat® Intelligence
Vehicle SOC (VSOC)
Predictions for 2022

I am proud to present to you the 2022 Global Automotive Cybersecurity Report.
Our cybersecurity experts analyzed 900+ publicly reported incidents and monitored
hundreds of deep and dark web forums to compile a comprehensive report, tailor-made
for actionable insights into the year ahead. You will find information about which risks
were more prominent, what’s on the rise, and how these impact smart mobility.
The past couple of years have been revolutionary in ways we never expected. A
continuous shift in connected, autonomous, shared, and electric vehicles (CASE)
has effectively turned vehicles into a mobile computing platform on wheels, enabling
an improved customer and ownership experience. However, with all the apparent
advantages of connectivity and software driven functionality, there are risks and threats
to address, namely data privacy and cybersecurity. Over these same revolutionary
years, the industry has seen an exponential rise in the magnitude, frequency, and
sophistication of cyber attacks. The automotive industry is now accelerating the
proactive measures necessary to secure their vehicles and ensure that drivers and
passengers remain safe.
Upstream has been helping automotive ecosystem stakeholders understand and
mitigate cyber risks for several years now, working with some of the leading automotive
OEMs, parts suppliers, insurance providers, aviation leaders, and others to protect
millions of vehicles that are already on the road today. We have been providing complete
automotive-specific threat intelligence, utilizing surface, deep, and dark web sources to
help automotive stakeholders identify and manage risks and vulnerabilities detected in
their supply chain and assets.
To this end, we at Upstream are committed to empowering the industry to leverage the
data gathered from connected vehicles and our threat intelligence analysts to help make
smart mobility safe and secure. Our industry has a lot to look forward to in the years
ahead, including paving the road for a better, more secure, and fascinating connected
Best regards,

Yoav Levy
Co-Founder & CEO


For years, we at Upstream Security have been monitoring and analyzing worldwide
automotive cyber incidents with the purpose of learning, understanding, and helping
protect the automotive ecosystem from cyber threats and misuse. Our researchers
have carefully categorized the data we have collected, analyzing each incident’s attack
methods, attack vectors, impact, target industries, and many other aspects. As a result,
we learn more about the threats and impact of cyber attacks targeting connected
vehicles on the road today, using this newfound knowledge to better protect them.
This report was created by analyzing 900+ publicly reported incidents that occurred
since 2010, with an increase of more than 225% in the number of incidents taking place
in 2021 alone, when compared to 2018.
Upstream’s AutoThreat® Intelligence team of cyber researchers and cyber analysts
are constantly looking for new incidents, analyzing and indexing every incident to the
AutoThreat® platform. A community version of AutoThreat® is publicly available on
Upstream’s website (AutoThreat Intelligence Cyber Incident Repository), for creating
greater awareness and helping automotive stakeholders improve their security posture.
Each incident and relevant contextual data are added to the platform to create a more
action-driven repository. These include the attack’s geo-location, impact, attack vector,
company type, and required proximity of the attacker to its target and beyond.
Incidents studied and presented in this report were taken from various sources such
as media, academic research, bug bounty programs, verified Twitter accounts of
government law enforcement agencies worldwide, the Common Vulnerabilities &
Exposures (CVE) database, and other publicly-available online sources.
In addition to the publicly reported cyber incidents, Upstream’s analysts probe the
deep and dark web to monitor black-hat actors that operate behind the scenes of
automotive-focused cyber attacks. This helps OEMs, Tier-1 and Tier-2 companies,
insurance, and other automotive-related companies take preventive steps to protect
their products, data, information, and internal assets. These incidents are discussed
in a separate designated section of this report titled “Deep and Dark Web” and are not
included in any charts or statistics in any other section.
The automotive industry must have a continuously updated database of security
incidents at the ready. To achieve this, select details of the publicly reported incidents
are available in the AutoThreat® repository. In addition, a comprehensive analysis is
available to AutoThreat® intelligence customers.
While every effort was made to identify and analyze each cyber incident within the
automotive ecosystem, it is possible that additional automotive cyber attacks occurred
but have not been publicly reported and thus, not publicized by Upstream in this report.






134% FROM

330 MILLION IN 2018 TO

IN 2023

Source: Juniper Research1


Recent years have seen an alarming spike in the number of cyber attacks
targeting the automotive industry.
This new prevalence of cyber attacks on vehicles comes from the sharp increase
in connected vehicles on the road today and the proliferation of knowledge,
as well as tools for vehicle cyber hacking, compared to just a few years ago.
Increased data collection across widely connected wireless networks creates
attack vectors that range from the OEM back-end servers to vehicle Electronic
Control Units (ECUs) and even an infotainment unit’s Bluetooth capabilities.
The need for improved driving and a better customer experience pushes
OEMs to create new technologically advanced innovations that are enabled by
connectivity. Unfortunately, the other side of connectivity is that this widens
the attack surface for hackers to find new attack vectors and exploit every flaw
leaving vehicles, networks, and back-end servers vulnerable.
To create a unified approach that will address these cyber threats, automotive
OEMs, Tier-1, and Tier-2 suppliers are implementing the UNECE’s WP.29 R1552 &
R1563 regulations and also the ISO/SAE 21434 standard. These are designed to
give manufacturers the flexibility to deliver innovative cybersecurity approaches
while ensuring a high level of safety and security for their customers while
creating uniform terminology across the industry.

UNECE WP.29’s two main components:


Management System
Cybersecurity management
from ideation through


Software Update
Management System
Cybersecurity measure to
ensure safe software updates
throughout the vehicle lifecycle

It is worth noting that these standards and regulations reflect the fluid nature of
technology adoption throughout the automotive industry. Both WP.29 R155 and
ISO/SAE 21434 stay away from outlining specific solutions and exact processes,
instead focusing on implementing a high standard of cybersecurity analysis.
Guidelines highlight the requirement to consider life-long cybersecurity threats
and vulnerabilities, beginning with development, through production, and
throughout the vehicle’s post-production lifecycle.


While many countries are planning to accept this new regulation, others will
adopt their own local regulations and oversight. This demands that OEMs, Tier-1,
and Tier-2 suppliers comply with various regulations, depending on the intended
market for their products. An example of a government that chooses not to
partake in the UN regulation is the US, who has the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA). This organization sets local vehicle safety
standards and recommends best cybersecurity practices.
In October 2021, China implemented new regulations surrounding collecting user
and driver personal data. In addition, data must be stored in China. In the case that
data needs to be transferred abroad, the relevant company must first undergo a
regulatory evaluation for approval4. They defined government agencies, criteria,
and various data protection steps that are not being adopted beyond their borders.
Nevertheless, we see that the WP.29 regulation and the ISO/SAE 21434 are moving
the needle on the decision-making of OEMs on the global level because the adoption
of WP.29 is passing a critical mass which leads to global operations changes.





Vehicle with four wheels weighing under 350kg (~770lb.)
whose engine does not exceed 50 cubic cm. and whose
maximum speed is designed for 45 km/h (~28mph)

R155 if equipped with
level-3 functionalities
and above


Vehicle with four wheels weighing under 400kg (~880lb.)
and whose continuous rated power does not exceed 15kW

R155 if equipped with
level-3 functionalities
and above


A vehicle with at least four wheels and meant to carry

R155 & R156

An automobile with at least four wheels meant to carry goods

R155 & R156

Trailers that have at least one ECU

R155 & R156

Agricultural Trailer


Interchangeable towed agricultural or forestry equipment



Any motorized, wheeled, or tacked agricultural equipment
that has two axles and is meant to travel at speeds greater
than 6km/h (~3.5mph)


Vehicles are regulated under R155, R156, or both of WP.29 guidelines5 depending on category classification.

Source: UNECE

Which vehicles do WP.29 R155 & R156 impact?


“Emphasizing the importance of
cybersecurity from the leadership level
down to the staff level demonstrates
the seriousness of effectively managing
cybersecurity risks and will help the
organization better prioritize cybersecurity
throughout product development.”
NHTSA 2020 Cybersecurity Best Practices
for the Safety of Modern Vehicles


The UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) announced6 in June 2020
regulations WP.29 R155 and R156.
R155 demands the creation of a Cybersecurity Management System
(CSMS), which encompasses all matters covering the vehicle’s lifecycle from
development, to production, and post-production. This includes holding OEMs
accountable in ensuring that suppliers align with the security measures
mentioned in the regulation.
R156 focuses on the post-production software aspect of vehicles, including the
software itself and over the air (OTA) procedures. Software that received approval
during production, under the WP.29 R155 regulation, must reapply for approval if
any modification is made to the vehicle that affects technical performance or the
original application documentation.

By 2025, a connected car will produce
25GB of data per hour and up to 500GB
if fully autonomous.7

These come down to one central question that today’s automotive leaders want
to settle: How will companies protect the hundreds of millions of vehicles that are
expected to be on the road by 2025, each expected to produce at least 25GB of
data per hour, from today’s known threats and unknown future threats?


Following the UNECE’s 2020 announcement, Upstream’s analysts characterized
each incident from the full 2020 & 2021 calendar year into the framework of the
seven threat categories mentioned in Annex 5 of WP.29 R155.

2020-2021 Cyber Incidents Categorized
by WP.29 R155 Threats & Vulnerabilities
4.3.2 Threats to vehicles regarding their communication channels

4.3.6 Threats to vehicle data/code

4.3.7 Potential vulnerabilities that could be exploited if not sufficiently protected or hardened

4.3.5 Threats to vehicles regarding their external connectivity and connections

4.3.1 Threats regarding back-end servers related to vehicles in the field

4.3.3. Threats to vehicles regarding their update procedures

4.3.4 Threats to vehicles regarding unintended human actions facilitating a cyber attack


Upstream’s research team analyzed
publicly reported automotive cyber
incidents that occurred in 2020 & 2021,
correlating them to the seven threat
categories presented in Annex 5 of R155.
Some incidents fall into more than one
threat category.

Source: Upstream Security




Threat #4.3.1
Threats regarding back-end servers
related to vehicles in the field
The regulation focuses on three specific
elements of back-end server to:

Back-end servers used as a means to
attack a vehicle or extract data


Services from a back-end server being
disrupted, affecting the operation of
a vehicle


Vehicle-related data held on back-end
servers being lost or compromised
(“data breach”)


Threat #4.3.2
Threats to vehicles via their
communications channels
WP.29 R155 includes eight detailed
descriptions of threats related to vehicle
communication channels:

Potential spoofing of messages or data


Unauthorized manipulation of vehicle
code and data


Unreliable or untreated messages that
are permitted


Easily accessible sensitive information


Potential denial-of-service (DoS) attacks


Privileged access for an unprivileged user


Viruses embedded in communication


Messages containing malicious content


Distribution of
incidents across
R155 threats


In violation of the section: “Abuse of privileges
by staff (insider attack),” a North American EV
OEM8 accused one of its software engineers
of downloading and stealing 26,000 private
files in January of 2021. In a separate incident
from August 2021, a Middle-Eastern rental9
and leasing group experienced a network
problem in one of its Telematics Service
Providers (TSPs) such as outlined in section
2 of 4.3.1, forcing drivers to experience
operational difficulties with their vehicles.


Distribution of
incidents across
R155 threats


In March 2019, researchers showed10 that
a North American OEM’s vehicles were
vulnerable to GPS spoofing attacks. During
a test drive, a staged attack caused the car
to slow down and unexpectedly veer off the
main road. In May 201811 hackers found a
vulnerability in a misconfigured back-end
server run by a North American IoT software
applications and telematics products and
services provider (TSP).
This gave hackers direct access to critical
databases that track the vehicle location, user
information, and even what’s needed to turn
off an engine remotely.
In December that same year, a mechanic
found a hidden dongle installed in a European
OEM’s12 instrument cluster, displacing the CAN
message to show mileage manipulation. Upon
removing the hardware, the odometer spiked
40,000 kilometers, revealing the true odometer
count and demonstrating how easily devices
can penetrate and manipulate the vehicle data.



Threat #4.3.3
Threats to vehicles regarding their
update procedures
The regulation lists two possible threats
related to vehicle update procedures:



Misuse or compromise of update


Denial of legitimate updates

Threat #4.3.4
Threats to vehicles regarding unintended
human actions facilitating a cyber attack
The regulation lists two possible threats
related to unintended human actions:

An owner, operator, or other authorized
used being tricked into taking an
action to unintentionally load malware
or enable an attack.


Defined security procedures are
not followed


Distribution of
incidents across
R155 threats


In April 2020, hackers13 manipulated a
European OEM’s infotainment software update
process. A vulnerability was exploited in
the parsing mechanism of the infotainment
firmware update process, which enabled the
attacker to bypass integrity checks, giving
unobstructed access to the infotainment
system that controls the traction control and
contains the owners personal data. Such an
access could eventually lead to exploitation of
other settings, including auto headlights.


Distribution of
incidents across
R155 threats


The regulation outlines the danger of
unintentional attacks initiated when legitimate
actors take actions that could unwittingly open
the door to an attack, listed as “Legitimate
actors are able to take actions that would
unwittingly facilitate cyber attacks.”
This can occur when defined security
procedures are not followed. For example:
in mid-June 2021, the North American arm of
a European luxury OEM experienced a breach,
leaking the personal data of nearly 1,000
existing and prospective buyers14.
The leak occurred because the data had been
inadvertently stored in an unprotected manner
on a cloud storage platform by a third-party
vendor with access to the database. Although it
was the vendor who failed to store the data in a
secure location, violating the regulation, it was
the OEM who was left exposed.
In another example, a major Asian OEM’s
confidential mobile app source code and
internal tools were published online in January
202115. The hackers gained access by taking
advantage of a misconfigure Git server that
was left with default credentials. As a result,
their internal core mobile library, vehicle
logistics portal, and parts of their proprietary
diagnostics tool were all leaked.



Threat #4.3.5
Threats to vehicles regarding their
external connectivity and connections
WP.29 R155 lists three possible threats
related to a vehicle’s external connectivity
and connections:

Manipulation of vehicle telematics,
remote operation systems, and
systems using short-range wireless


Hosted third party software, e.g.
entertainment applications, used as a
means to attack vehicle systems


Devices connected to external interfaces
e.g. USB ports, OBD port, used as a
means to attack vehicle systems


Threat #4.3.6
Threats to vehicle
The UNECE WP 29.R155 regulation lists
seven possible threats related to a vehicle’s
data and code:

Extraction of vehicle data/code


Manipulation of vehicle data/code


Erasure of data/code


Introduction of malware


Introduction of new software or
overwrite existing software


Disruption of systems or operations


Manipulation of vehicle parameters


Distribution of
incidents across
R155 threats


In January 2021, a researcher hacked an
infotainment unit in an Asian OEM’s vehicle16.
The hacker found a vulnerability in the invehicle infotainment (IVI) system whereby
plugging in a USB device he was able to gain
root shell access to the system.
Another example was in September 2021,
when thieves used sophisticated hacking
hardware to steal 25 European-made luxury
cars in London17. Once gaining entry into
the vehicle, they conducted a physical cyber
attack involving connecting to the OBD port,
reprogramming new keys, and giving them full
access to vehicle features.


Distribution of
incidents across
R155 threats


Vehicle software manipulation is a hazard
to drivers, pedestrians, and the full OEM
ecosystem. In September 2021, for example,
owners of a North American EV OEM18 in
Europe were able to illegally use vehicle control
system software by downloading a cracked
version of the operating system, unlocking selfdriving features and, potentially other sensitive
telematics data. This cybersecurity breach
not only opens potential vulnerabilities, it also
puts the driver, passengers, and pedestrians
in harm’s way as the system was designed to
recognize road signs commonly used in North
In another incident, Chinese authorities
investigated an Asian OEM19 following claims
of crash-data manipulation from an accident
that occurred while the driver assistance
feature was activated. This is an example
of data manipulation in order to falsify a
vehicle’s driving data (e.g., mileage, driving
speed, driving directions, etc.).



Threat #4.3.7
Potential vulnerabilities that could
be exploited if not sufficiently
protected or hardened
There are six possible threats under
“potential vulnerabilities”:

Cryptographic technology can be
compromised or are insufficiently applied


Parts or supplies could be compromised
to permit vehicles to be attacked


Software or hardware development
permits vulnerabilities


Network design introduces vulnerabilities


Unintended transfer of data can occur


Physical manipulation of systems can
enable an attack


Distribution of
incidents across
R155 threats


In September 2021, cybersecurity researchers
from the Singapore University of Technology
and Design found Bluetooth vulnerabilities
in devices from various system-on-a-chip
(SoC) vendors that are embedded in vehicle
components20. Applying to part 3 of 4.3.7, this
group of vulnerabilities, collectively referred
to as BrakTooth (CVE-2021-28139), open the
door to exploit a range of attacks, including
denial-of-service (DoS) and arbitrary code
execution in a vehicle. Their research revealed
that BrakTooth affects over 1,400 different
products across industries.

Flexibility is a crucial part of WP.29 R155
and ISO/SAE 21434, giving clear guidelines
without hampering manufacturers’ ability to
bring new technologies to market.


UNECE WP.29 R155 & R156
A key differentiator between WP.29 R155 / R156, ISO/SAE 21434 is that ISO/SAE
gives a deep methodology on how OEMs and Tier suppliers calculate the risk
score of an asset and to prioritize vulnerability urgency.
The standard provides a structured cybersecurity framework, establishing
cybersecurity as an integral element of engineering throughout the lifecycle of a
vehicle from the conceptual phase through decommissioning.

ISO/SAE 21434, R155, and R156 in practice

by design



Predict what
security flaws
may appear in
the future after
the vehicle leaves
the dealership.

monitor for faults
during and after

Assess risk and
issue a risk score.

Early detection
& rapid
Rapidly respond
with a fix
according to R155.

ISO/SAE 21434 works to support the interest
of UNECE WP.29 R155 and vice versa,
protecting vehicles on a global scale.

updates allow
OEMs to avoid
recalls OTA
updates in line
with R156 when


The standard specifically requires OEMs to analyze threats and risks throughout
a vehicle’s lifecycle in order to determine the extent to which a road user can be
impacted by automotive cyber threats and vulnerabilities. This process of “threat
analysis and risk assessment” is called TARA, which is done by calculating the
impact and feasibility of known and cataloged cyber threats, also known as CVEs
(Common Vulnerabilities & Exposures). (See chapter 3 for more about CVEs)
The ISO/SAE standard explains that one way to determine feasibility is to use
the CVE’s CVSS 3.X (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) exploitability score,
which has values that range between 0.12 (very low) and 3.89 (high).
When looking at the average CVSS 3.X exploitability scores of 209 automotiverelated CVEs recorded that include a CVSS 3.X scoring (since 2015 when
the CVSS 3.X scoring method began), more than 75% of the CVEs had CVSS
exploitability scores that were graded as “medium” and “high”, highlighting the
high level of threat that many automotive vulnerabilities carry.

Automotive CVE Attack Feasibility Ratings and
CVSS Version 3 Exploitability Scores:




Very Low





Ultimately, what kind of risk does this
pose to the owner or driver of the vehicle?


State hacking
The ongoing battles occurring in the cybersecurity space are said to be carried
out by state-sponsored hacking groups who are increasingly targeting public
systems that impact the day to day lives of its citizens. Like many hacks, it is
difficult to pinpoint their locations or any official government approval to their
actions, yet they focus on similar targets and impact.
2021 saw reports of cyber attacks carried out against countries’ assets and civilians.

firms hit by
potentially foreignsponsored cyber

Hit by cyber

Hit by what they
claim are state
sponsored hackers

companies hit by a
ransomware attack
executed by what
appears as foreign
hacking group

Discovered in November 2021, American companies including healthcare
and transportation firms, were hit by cyber attacks conducted by foreign
government-backed groups that have been operating as far back as
September 2020. According to a cybersecurity alert published by the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the hacking group had launched
disruptive cyber attacks against a wide range of U.S. companies as the
hackers managed to exploit old software vulnerabilities in products made by
major software developers to break into victim computer networks21.
An American-Japanese multinational cybersecurity software company
claims that regional state-sponsored threat actors have been targeting
transportation organizations and government entities related to the
transportation sector since the middle of 2020. The threat actors have
been around since 2011, conducting cyber attacks against organizations in
government, healthcare, high-tech, and transportation sectors in Hong Kong,
the Philippines, and Taiwan22.
The database of the Iranian Traffic Police was leaked and sold on the deep
web. The breached database was found for sale and included complete 2021
profiles of Iranian vehicles, including motorcycles and private vehicles, as well as
governmental, public and industrial vehicles23. In another incident, a cyber attack
on Iran, which was claimed to be executed by state-sponsored hackers, disrupted
operations at 4,300 gas stations24.
Two major Israeli public transportation companies were hit by a ransomware
attack and had their data leaked to the darknet. In addition to the stolen data,
the attack had brought the companies’ websites down25.


Black-hat actors for profit
One of the classic reasons for tinkering, hacking, and manipulating cars systems
is for financial gain through criminal acts. Unfortunately, the increased availability
of relatively low-cost hardware, combined with more people being furloughed may
have contributed to a wave of thefts.
In the first half of 2021, 124 vehicle thefts26 occurred in Oakville, Canada alone, a
city of only 211,000 residents. Sixty-six of these thefts involved a keyless entry or
programming technology, and 42 of the 124 thefts took place in only four weeks.
Equally concerning is the confidence in which these gangs operated, carrying
out attacks in broad daylight. In under a minute, luxury vehicles can be spotted,
compromised, and driven away.
As sophisticated hardware and hacking tutorials become easy to obtain, largescale thefts are occurring in all regions around the globe, including the US,
Europe, Canada, Australia, and elsewhere.

Hacking for personal gain
The desire to tinker with the inner workings of vehicles has brought us
romanticized stories of bootleggers outrunning authorities and even led to
NASCAR’s creation. But during COVID-19 lockdowns people were at home,
tampering with the system hardware or software, potentially compromising multivehicle networks’ safety, privacy, and reliability.
Independently tampering with vehicle software or hardware can expose a
vehicle’s owner to unwanted repercussions. For example, installed software,
found on the internet in a forum may have embedded vulnerabilities that can
be exploited by hackers, allowing them to obtain data, manipulate data, and
potentially carry out a cyber attack.
This has led to an increased interest by insurance companies to use vehicle
telematics and technologies to better understand attacks and trends.

Popping the digital hood of a car to tune
its performance creates opportunities for
hackers to compromise personal property
and safety.



Both UNECE WP.29 R155 and ISO/SAE 21434 specifically address these risks by
requiring the full automotive ecosystem to work together to secure the whole
supply chain. Nearly all risks outlined in the United Nations regulation apply to
multiple parties to ensure that communication systems and electronic components
are secure during production, delivery, and throughout the vehicle’s entire lifetime.
Some guidelines are directly related to cyber threats targeting Tier-1 and Tier-2
components, to protect against malicious internal CAN messages, manipulation of
functions designed to remotely operate systems like remote key fobs, immobilizers,
charging piles, and prevent access by corrupted applications.
Nowadays, the UNECE WP.29 R155 CSMS regulation and the ISO/SAE 21434
standard both call for management of the automotive supply chain.
The WP.29 R155 regulation indicates that the onus of supply chain cybersecurity
management lies upon the OEM. It is their responsibility to conduct due
diligence into the cybersecurity practices of their supplies. Now, it is the vehicle
manufacturer’s responsibility to ensure that all vehicle components and parts, both
hardware and software, are secure.
Furthermore, WP.29 R155 demands (in Section 5.1.1) that the OEM must “collect
and verify the information required under this regulation through the supply chain
so as to demonstrate that supplier-related risks are identified and are managed.”
The ISO/SAE 21434 standard also highlights the importance of supply chain
management. Clause 15 of the standard focuses on “distributed cybersecurity
activities” and discusses the cybersecurity relationship between OEMs, Tier-1,
and Tier-2 suppliers.
The standard indicates that an OEM is responsible for ensuring that its suppliers
are implementing methods to ensure their products and components are cyber
secure and recommends the implementation of three main strategies to develop a
successful supplier and OEM relationship:

(Clause 15.4.1)

and Evaluation of
Supplier Capability”

(Clause 15.4.2)

“Request for


(Clause 15.4.3)

“Alignment of

ISO/SAE 21434 steps for companies, OEMs, and their suppliers to take to align on vulnerabilities and incidents.


The early days of the COVID-19 pandemic saw mass-cancellations of automotive
components as the industry braced for the impact of a volatile economy and
stay-at-home requirements around the globe. As new vehicle orders came roaring
back, there were bottlenecks and difficulties securing electronic components
from manufacturers. This created an opportunity for counterfeit chips to enter
the market that had major financial and potential cybersecurity implications in
addition to an increase in car thefts for functioning after-market chips.

A dangerous inconvenience
The recent chip shortage, caused by multiple factors including COVID-19, supply
chain bottlenecks have left a window of opportunity27 for black-hat actors to flood
the market with counterfeit parts, components, and chips.

Counterfeit after-market components
are a hazard to driver safety and their
vehicle’s security.

While some legitimate resellers are dusting off old chips from their shelves,
which can manage modern vehicle computing demands, some fraudsters create
counterfeit versions of vehicle chips, making them look like they came from
legitimate sources but cannot perform as needed. Even more of a hazard are the
ones that work correctly but are unreliable, experiencing premature wear out and
failing while in mission mode.
In the case of fraudulent components, a single device is enough for a hacker
to obtain critical telematics information, such as location details, manipulate
in-cabin microphones, vehicle override authority, and a host of other dangerous
activities. This is in addition to their ability to gain insight into the activities of
each vehicle and its owner.


The chip shortage has created parking lots full of inoperable vehicles28 around
automotive manufacturing facilities across the globe and is estimated to have
cost the automotive industry $210 billion in revenue29 in 2021.
In April 2021, A European OEM warned against a big production hit in the second
quarter of 2021 due to a global chip shortage. The OEM warned that the global
shortage of semiconductors affecting car production would worsen in the
upcoming months30.
In addition, an Asian OEM reported it would reduce production by 40% in August
2021, affecting most of its production lines. The OEM’s reductions in North
America were estimated to be between 40% to 60% that month, and the reductions
meant the OEM would produce between 60,000 and 90,000 fewer vehicles31.
Another North American OEM produced 700,000 fewer vehicles than planned due
to the parts shortages32. At the same time, a North American OEM closed plants
in the US, Canada, and Mexico for two weeks in September for the same reason.
This is after they temporarily closed plants in April due to the shortage. During
an earnings call, a single North American OEM worried that the shortage would
impact between $1.5 and $2 billion of revenue by the end of 202133.
While each company manages the shortage differently, no OEM is clear from the
widespread impacts or counterfeiting risks of this global chip shortage. In addition,
OEMs, Tier-1s, and Tier-2 manufacturers must also contend with other cyber
attacks, further hampering production (See Chapter 5 for more information).

Reseller responsibilities
Besides for the chip shortage, scarce supply, and rising costs of new vehicles
created a boom in the used-car market34. But with most sellers and buyers
unaware of the level of computerization that vehicles have experienced in the
last decade, personal data was left exposed without sellers or dealerships
realizing it.
This can take the form of failing to clear saved GPS locations, not removing
Bluetooth pairing information, and perhaps the most dangerous, not removing
access to vehicles on various smartphone applications. An example of this
is when a vehicle lessee in the USA was able to log into his vehicle’s mobile
application in February 202035 and obtain critical data on the car he returned four
years earlier. He could lock, unlock, remotely start, and even track the vehicles he
no longer leased, all from legitimate applications. (See more details about attack
vectors in Chapter 3)





2021 saw an increase in sophisticated attacks that brought challenges to the entire
automotive ecosystem and local authorities who worked to find cybersecurity solutions
against all existing and developing attack vectors and clamp down on black-hat actors.
As the UNECE, ISO, and SAE implement new standards and regulations, it remains
to be seen if measures will deter black-hat actors or drive them to develop more
sophisticated procedures.



Hacking the CAN bus of a
European OEM’s vehicle,
a hacker was able to
wirelessly transmit vehicle
data to a third party device.43

An Asian EV OEM was
investigated by the Chinese
law enforcement due to
claims that car data was
tampered with following a
fatal collision.44

Hackers exposed multiple
vulnerabilities in the
operating system used by
major agriculture OEMs,
allowing black-hat actors
to remotely manipulate
machinery, even taking
them out of service.45

Numerous vulnerabilities
discovered in a European
infotainment system, which
could be exploited to take
control of multiple in-cabin

The doors of a
North American EV
manufacturer’s vehicle
were hacked using a drone
carrying a Wi-Fi dongle,
exposing the vulnerabilities
these vehicles have
to wireless adjacent


A North American
insurance agency with
some 17 million vehicle
policyholders, experienced
a data breach that
compromised drivers
license ID numbers in
early 2021.38

Hackers exploited a feature
in modern vehicles’ ECUs,
and managed for the first
time to misuse it and
remotely attack other ECUs.
The hackers managed to
attack and shutdown the
powertrain ECU and power
steering ECU in to vehicles.42
A data breach hit two
European OEMs, impacting
more than 3.3 million
customers and prospective
buyers in North America.41



An Asian OEM’s American
business arm experienced
a ransomware attack by
the DoppelPaymer gang,
who demanded $20
million in exchange for a
decryptor and not leaking
stolen data.37


A hacker exploited
a vulnerability in a
major European Tier-1
infotainment system that
was deployed in an Asian
OEM’s vehicle. This was
achieved by plugging in a
USB device, then executing
the exploitation to gain
root shell access to the


Top incidents in 2021:

Researchers found
vulnerabilities affecting
devices or properties
embedded in or used for
connected cars, chargers,
in-vehicle infotainment
(IVI) systems, and digital
remotes with car chargers
were at risk, including
vehicle-to-grid (V2G)
systems in Europe.46


In 2021, the majority of attacks were carried out by black-hat actors.
While white-hat hackers manipulate systems and discover vulnerabilities for the
sake of educational research to improve vehicles’ cybersecurity, black-hat hackers
have an agenda that frequently aligns with criminal activity.

Black-hat actors continued to outpace white-hat hackers in 2021




2021 saw 56.9% of attacks carried out by black-hat actors, up from 49.3% in 2020.

Source: Upstream Security



Common Vulnerability Scoring System, CVSS, is a vulnerability scoring system
designed to provide an open and standardized method for rating CVEs. CVSS
helps organizations prioritize and coordinate a joint response to security
vulnerabilities by communicating the base, temporal, and environmental
properties of a vulnerability47. The CVSS score given to each vulnerability, defines
whether it is Critical, High, Medium, Low, or None48.



To date, there have been 232 CVEs related to the automotive
industry, 139 in 2021 compared to 33 in 2020

In general, CVSS scores have practical applications and, as such, help security
teams, developers, and researchers in companies that are part of the supply
chain of a product prioritize efforts for patching these vulnerabilities, allocate
resources, invest more time and human resources, and also check whether the
vulnerabilities had already been exploited.
In the automotive industry, one component can be used by multiple OEMs in
different environments. As such, a vulnerability in one could not be explored
evenly by various OEMs. This aspect of risk assessment is also addressed in the
Risk Assessment Methods ISO/SAE 21434 standard.
Cybersecurity companies should not neglect any vulnerabilities and continuously
search for any misuse or exploitation of all vulnerabilities that may affect their
products, including reviewing, researching, and patching both Low and Medium
scored incidents.


Source: Upstream Security

Number of automotive-related CVEs found in 2019-2021:


Our analysts divide cybersecurity incidents into two main categories: Physical
attacks, where the hacker needs physical access to its target, and remote attacks,
where the hacker can strike from a short or long distance without physically being
connected to the car.
In January 202149, a researcher hacked an infotainment unit in an Asian OEM’s
vehicle. The hacker found a vulnerability in the infotainment system whereby
plugging in a USB device, he was able to gain root shell access to the system.
An example of a short-range attack occurred in the UK in July 2021 when a Europeanmade vehicle was hacked and stolen outside its owner’s home50 by an exploitation
and misuse of a remote keyless entry system. The thieves used a relay attack device
aimed at the house to activate the ignition and drive away in the stolen car.
While long-range attacks have primarily occurred in specific white-hat-controlled
environments51, experts fear that increased connectivity means it is only a matter
of time until a black-hat actor executes this attack.


Long-range attacks


Short-range attacks

Source: Upstream Security

2021’s short vs. long-range attacks

Between 2010 and 2021, 84.5% of the reported attacks were remote, while
15.5% required physical access to the target. This trend is likely to continue
as the number of connected components in vehicles increases and long-range
accessibility becomes more reliable via cellular networks.


Physical access

With vehicles becoming more connected, the need for physical access to a car in order to
hack it reduces significantly.

Remote access

Source: Upstream Security

Remote attacks greatly outnumbered physical attacks in 2021


Common Vulnerabilities & Exposures (CVEs) are acknowledged and
cataloged cybersecurity risks that can be quickly referenced across the
automotive ecosystem. These threats are commonly found directly on OEM
products; however, they may also appear throughout OEMs’ supply chain
companies’ products.
In 2021 alone, there were 139 new CVEs related to the automotive industry. These
CVEs varied from vulnerabilities discovered on a chip used in a system towards a
vehicle or vulnerabilities found on vehicle systems. For example, in October 2021,
a vulnerability (CVE-2021-0583)52 was found on a Bluetooth pairing transaction in
the Android Automotive operating system, allowing Bluetooth to be enabled in the
vehicle without user consent. Such an action could lead to a local escalation of
privilege with user execution privileges needed.
Two months earlier, in August 2021, a North American software company
announced that one of its most popular products, an in-vehicle infotainment
operating system, contains a high-level risk security vulnerability53 (CVE-202122156). The vulnerability can be exploited remotely and allows an attacker to
perform a denial of service (DoS) attack or execute malicious commands on
the affected device.
OEMs who manufacture the vehicles assemble them from dozens of software
and hardware modules produced by Tier-1s suppliers. These components
are constructed from various individual components supplied to the Tier-1s
by their Tier-2s. Each component’s quality and safety are entrusted to the
company that produces it. Therefore, the importance of overseeing the quality
and safety of each automotive-related product, is the responsibility of each
company in the supply chain. As vulnerabilities and flaws are not always
addressed on time, or at all, all it takes is a flaw in one commonly used chip’s
design to dangerously impacting millions of vehicles.

Breakdown of publicly reported automotive-related vulnerabilities


OEM – Vehicle manufacturer


Tier-1 – Components supplier


Tier-2 – Chipset supplier


Software/Hardware service provider – (e.g., fleet management systems, aftermarket devices)



In 2021, the CVSS-scored vulnerabilities
found by Upstream’s analysts had:





Will regulations help mitigate against cyber attacks?
With 139 new CVEs discovered in 2021, each company must address and
implement proper mitigation techniques to protect their products against both
existing and yet unknown vulnerabilities that may arise down the road. VSOCs
(Vehicle Security Operation Center) must be maintained to enforce continuous
monitoring for over a decade after vehicles roll off the assembly inline order to
keep in line with the ISO/SAE 21434 standard.

Source: Upstream Security




No segment of the connected vehicle ecosystem is clear from
the threat of cyber attacks.

Electric Vehicles
TSP / Fleet Management
Car Sharing
Car Rental
Car Dealerships
Logistics & Delivery Fleets
Autonomous Vehicles
Ride Sharing
Public Transportation
Ride Hailing
Government Fleets / Emergency Services
Smart Cities
Bike Sharing

Sectors that have expanded their digital footprints, such as the Agriculture and
the Car rental sectors, have dealt with new attacks and more eminent concerns
about the people they serve.

Source: Upstream Security



The insurance industry has undergone significant changes with the increased
availability of telematics data in recent years. The industry is uniquely positioned
to analyze multiple data streams, including driver habits, not for everyday usage
or vehicle ability but to calculate premiums and put a dollar value on each vehicle.
Cybersecurity is an essential factor in calculating these premiums, requiring
companies to understand the security posture of each vehicle make and model.
Unfortunately, the expertise to do these assessments is outside the core
expertise of insurance underwriters and therefore they have to collaborate with
automotive cybersecurity experts to specify the relevant risks.
A cyber attack on a vehicle may even impact an insurance company’s IT network.
Similar to OEMs, some insurance companies communicate with their insurers’
vehicles as well.

Connected agriculture
Conflicts over agricultural vehicles made big headlines in 202154. Farmers who
were looking to self-repair their equipment turned to online forums where they
began swapping codes, manipulating their tractor systems and data. As such,
the industry has experienced an increase in cyber attacks against this previously
unnoticed sector.
Two significant incidents in agriculture vehicles were found this year. For
example, in August 2021, security researchers found multiple vulnerabilities
in the operating systems of two agriculture vehicle makers and providers of
farm machinery that compromised the security of the vehicles55. Earlier in April
2021, the group discovered two vulnerabilities that allowed access to data of
all customers who had purchased tractors or equipment from these makers56.
These vulnerabilities, found in company apps and websites, could allow hackers
to find and download the personal data of all owners of the farming vehicles and
equipment. This data was then made available on the deep and dark web (see
more about the deep and dark web in Chapter 5).


Automotive cyber attacks have also impacted governments. For example,
in February 2021, the governmental transport agency for New South Wales,
Australia57 (TfNSW) was affected by a cyber attack on their file-sharing system,
where hackers stole customer data58. In addition, in March 2021, Connecticut
and seven other states’ Division of Motor Vehicles (DMVs) experienced an
attack59 against their emissions software vendor. The attack affected the
states’ vehicle emissions testing programs leading to emissions testing
suspensions in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and six other states at the
beginning of April 2021.
In another incident that same month, New York City’s subway and bus transit
system, operated by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), was
targeted in a ransomware attack. The attack exposed vulnerabilities in the worldrenowned transportation network that serves 5.5 million riders daily. The attack
did not involve financial demands but instead appeared to be part of a recent
series of major US infrastructure intrusions by sophisticated hackers60.

FROM 2019-2023

2021 saw individuals turn to online forums to learn how to repair vehicles
without paying local dealerships. As a result, many forums and new communities
allowed people to raise questions and receive help from hackers. In these cases,
solutions are not approved or reviewed by OEMs. This led to individuals, who
potentially do not hold extensive software or hardware knowledge, to tamper
with sensitive instruments. This created new vulnerabilities, voided warranties,
and created safety issues where there had been none prior.

See more information about citizen hacking in Chapter 5:
What’s Hiding in the Deep and Dark Web


While electric vehicles are vulnerable to all attacks mentioned above, they are also
subjected to another realm of attacks. Thus, they can be impacted by vulnerabilities
within the electric vehicles charging station (EVCS) ecosystem, and these security
weaknesses can affect multiple EVCS components.
These include charging points, charge point operators (CPOs) that provide network
infrastructure, and even the distribution system operators (DSO), which manage
the energy distribution networks. In July 2021, researchers discovered numerous
security flaws in a range of smart electric vehicle (EV) chargers62. The researchers
could remotely switch the chargers on and off, remove the owner’s access, and lock
or unlock the charging cable. Furthermore, they claimed a bad actor could steal the
vehicle owner’s identity, stop the owner from charging their vehicle, then charge
their own vehicle free of charge. One of the researchers also claimed that changing
the programming on the device would allow an attacker to permanently disable the
charger or use it to attack other chargers or servers. What’s more, black-hat actors
can infiltrate a home network in cases where the chargers are Wi-Fi connected.
The network effect could be potentially profound as charging networks use the
Open Charge Point Interface (OCPI) protocol — a protocol which was designed
to make charging seamless between different charging networks and operators,
allowing interoperability between charging networks. However, this protocol also
means that a weakness in one charging network could affect the entire power grid
of charging stations, as a vulnerability in one platform could potentially create a
vulnerability in another.
Ultimately, most smart EV charging points researched were vulnerable to attacks.
Taking advantage of these vulnerabilities has the potential to affect millions of
vehicles, enable remote control of the charging process, and act as a vector to
steal information.
One weakness in one of the chargers enabled pushing attacker firmware to the
charger remotely, although this specific attack vector was not researched, it could
be inferred that pushing malicious firmware to chargers could be used as means
to a multi-vehicle attack through the vehicle charging interface.
In December 202163, researchers looked into how Apache Log4j Java-based
logging library vulnerabilities affected devices or properties embedded in or used
for connected cars, chargers, in-vehicle-infotainment (IVI) systems, and digital
remotes. Their research found that car chargers were at risk, including vehicleto-grid (V2G) systems in Europe. The V2G system allows stored energy in car
batteries to be redistributed over the grid to help balance demand concerning
the production level. In addition, they found that a car’s IVI system, which uses
a complex OS, could also be compromised. The researchers showed that by
exploiting Log4j vulnerabilities, they could execute attacks on the vehicles and
their connected infrastructure. (See more on V2X chapter 3)






2021 saw an increase in the use and sophistication of cyber attacks across
various attack vectors. Advanced attack practices are creating a heightened
awareness across the industry of how any point of connectivity is vulnerable to
new threats.






In-vehicle network


IT network


OBD port


Mobile app


Keyless entry / Key fob






Source: Upstream Security

Connected vehicle’s most common attack vectors 2010-2021


Servers, vehicles, and what’s in-between
Connected vehicles collect essential information throughout a vehicle’s life. This
involves open communication with their OEMs’ telematics and application servers,
which in turn communicate with the OEMs’ back-end servers. Beyond OEM servers,
other services that communicate with vehicles might belong to aftermarket
companies, including insurance companies, fleets, management services providers,
commercial fleets, car rental and leasing companies, and more.
Servers that communicate with vehicles are called telematics servers and
command and control servers, and the servers that communicate with the vehicles’
companion apps are application servers. Ultimately, these servers are tasked with
receiving and sending data, making them vulnerable to attacks, such as injection
attacks, just like many other servers. By exploiting vulnerabilities in back-end
servers, for example, a black-hat actor could also attack vehicles on the road.
The significant part is that most of the OEMs’ telematics back-end servers are
responsible for command and control services. This means that not only can they
store the vehicles’ location, but they can also control vehicle functions remotely
by sending commands such as “lock” and “unlock” to a car’s doors, start the
engine, and more. Therefore, if compromised, these servers can pose a risk to
drivers and passengers.
An example of this was seen in December 2021, with the disclosure of the
Log4Shell vulnerability64 — a zero-day vulnerability in Apache Log4j​​Java-based
logging library. The critical vulnerability would jeopardize the security of any
automotive-related server using the library since the data traversing between
the vehicle and server was collected, stored, and logged over a period of time in
different systems or environments. This sort of communication puts vehicle data
at risk of being impacted by the vulnerability.
In that study, the researchers managed to show that by exploiting the vulnerability
in companies’ servers, threat actors can access companies’ assets. Potentially,
this poses a threat to OEMs. Communicating directly with the telematics servers,
and therefore with each OEMs’ internal servers, opens an opportunity for a hacker
to exploit the vulnerability in the back-end infrastructure and pave their way to
connected vehicles in the field.


Telematics Control Unit
A Telematics Control Unit (TCU) refers to the embedded system on board a vehicle
that connects it to the telematics server, enabling vehicle tracking, telemetry
collection, remote commands, and additional services. In April 2020, hackers
managed to reverse engineer a TCU of a vehicle and discovered that they could
utilize the telematics connection to infiltrate the corporate network and gain full
control of the network using admin credentials. The TCU used in the hack contained
a cellular modem that provided connectivity to the device with the insertion of a
SIM card, which was found in the vehicle65. The SIM card was configured with a
private APN (a private access point name), making it more secure than a public
APN. The TCU also used a VPN (Virtual Private Network) that connected the
vehicle to the private services inside the corporate network (the telematics server,
OTA server, etc.). Atop these security layers, HTTPS or HTTP over SSL tunnel was
used. By pulling out the SIM card from the TCU and plugging it into a laptop, the
hackers were able to utilize the SIM’s access to the telematics private APN, which
was connected to the telematics back-end using a VPN. Since the VPN had no
significant segregation from the rest of the corporate network, the hackers were
able to access the corporate network and servers outside the TCU back-end.

Ransomware attacks
The automotive industry has suffered from multiple ransomware attacks as
OEMs, Tier-1 companies, and automobile service providers continued to be
targeted by threat actors.
In 2021, ransomware attacks directly targeted OEMs, such as a February 2021
attack on an Asian OEM, when the DoppelPaymer group demanded $20 million
in exchange for a decryptor. In addition, customers were unable to purchase
vehicles for a number of days until the OEM was able to fix the issue66.
Ransomware attacks were almost a third of all reported black-hat hacks in the
past year. These attacks generally target companies’ IT servers in an attempt
to extort businesses. Still, it is essential to acknowledge that if they can access
back-end IT servers, they can also control systems and facilitate attacks on
vehicles. The above-mentioned attack damaged the services of all the OEM’s
dealerships across the United States as well as the OEM’s linked apps, phone
services, payment systems, and internal sites used by dealerships.
As such, one of the most critical impacts of these attacks in the past few years is
the disruptions of OEM networks; damaging operations and creating bottlenecks
in the vehicle production process. For example, OEMs around the globe had
their plants targeted by attackers who led to disruption of these OEMs’ car
manufacturing processes over the last few years. Multiple OEMs from Asia and


throughout Europe67 had their plants targeted by attackers who disrupted the
OEMs’ car manufacturing processes.

Ransomware attacks beyond OEMs
In September 2021, a European supplier of automotive exhaust and heat
management systems confirmed that it was a victim of a cyber attack against its IT
infrastructure. The impacted company declared it an “organized cyber attack”68.
Another incident took place earlier, in February 2021, when an East European
car-sharing service was hit in a ransomware attack in which the personal data
of 110,000 people, including the company’s customers, was leaked to an online
hacker website and posted for sale on an online dark web forum. The stolen data
included usernames, personal identification numbers, telephone numbers, email
and home addresses, driver’s license numbers, and encrypted passwords69.

Greater vehicle connectivity has allowed OEMs to release remote services using
vehicle companion apps that connect vehicles to smartphones, conveniently
allowing owners to control features such as remote start, lock, unlock, track
the location and status of the vehicle, and more70. These allow users to control
critical functions from across the street or the globe. The flip side to this
convenience is that these same apps, which help us communicate with our
vehicles, also act as an additional attack surface for hackers to exploit. With
the rise in popularity, the industry is seeing 7.3% of all automotive cyber-related
incidents between 2010 and 2021 involve a mobile app.
Mobile app attacks are not new. Back in 2016, an Asian OEM disabled their
companion app after they found it was easy for hackers to exploit the app to gain
unauthorized access to the car. While they could only access basic functions,
turning on and tampering with cabin temperature functions while the vehicle was
not in use could drain the battery or damage the car71.
They weren’t the only ones that saw how car mobile apps could be exploited and
misused. In 2019, car owners who were using mobile apps to remotely locate,
unlock, and start their cars, were displayed other people’s accounts and vehicle
information72. In addition, in August 2020, an owner of a North American-made
vehicle opened his vehicle’s smartphone app with 5 cars parked in Europe
displayed. He was able to view all of the details of these cars and remotely
control them as if he owned them73.


Source: Upstream Security


Some of the greatest conveniences that
OEMs offer their customers are the most
tempting for hackers.
White-hat hackers have also discovered disturbing vulnerabilities involving mobile
apps. In February 2020, a researcher showed that users could use a custom opensource mobile app to bypass the access pin and prompt required by the OEM’s
mobile app to remotely control a number of the OEM’s vehicle functions74.
Some applications may lack proper security standards, leading to multiple high-risk
vulnerabilities in a single app. This can grant access to not only vehicle controls but
potentially back-end servers as well.
Beyond attacks on vehicles, mobile app attacks can also apply to connected
charging stations.
For example, in November 2021, a vulnerability in a UK domestic car charging
provider’s app led to exposure of full names, addresses, and charge history of
thousands of consumers. More than 140,000 users were put at risk, potentially
allowing black-hat actors to identify their common charging locations. Although
it was believed that the issue affected only customers with home chargers, it was
unclear if the risk also applied to users of the company’s public charging points75.
These vulnerabilities leave the vehicle owner’s privacy and property at risk of
theft. The new level of both digital and physical connectivity requires OEMs and
ecosystem suppliers to consider how to protect customers, in line with new
regulations, if they are going to earn public trust.

Mobile apps and private information
One of the dangers lurking in car mobile apps is identity theft by black-hat actors
who get their hands on real users’ private data. Vulnerabilities in mobile devices
and in their corresponding application servers are constantly evolving and infecting
an ever-increasing number of users. These nefarious threats can completely
compromise private users’ information and steal all credentials stored on it.
For example, in April 2020, researchers exposed an unsecured S3 bucket of a
French OEM’s mobile app that exposed the activity and private information of
hundreds of thousands of app users in India. These vulnerabilities could be
exploited to carry out massive-scale attacks that compromise sensitive data and
the safety of all road users76.


Mobile app hack in racing
Racing teams can use mobile applications to connect with their fans and build
buzz around a new vehicle before it appears on the track.
In March 2021, the smartphone application of a European Formula One motor
racing team, was hacked prior to the official augmented reality launch of the
company’s new Formula One car. The hackers extracted data from the app,
including the renders of the vehicle and its new livery. In addition, CAD models of
the new vehicle were easily made available. In light of the attack, the company
removed the application from both the Apple App Store and Android Google Play
store but the data had already been extracted and leaked77.

Data sharing and smart mobility
Many businesses in the automotive industry rely on the new technologies
introduced by connected cars and smart mobility. Such businesses include car
rental agencies, car leasing companies, and the expanding realm of car sharing
companies. Mobile apps enable companies to provide data-driven modern
services, allowing them to remotely track and monitor their fleets. While these
technologies are very beneficial to businesses, they also entail the risks of fraud
and misuse which can have a grave impact.
In March 2021, it was published that 52% of apps share your data. Smart mobility
services were among the top 10 apps that share the most information with third
parties. In addition, ransomware attacks on the services we use may steal the data
we insert to our mobile apps and from there to their connected servers as well78.

More than 50% of all reported automotiverelated cybersecurity incidents took place
during the past two years alone
Source: Upstream Security


Over the past decade, keyless entry and fob systems (wireless key fobs)
have become a common feature, moving from a luxury to a common industry
standard. This has led to a wave of wireless key fob misuse and manipulations,
made easier by the presence of keyless entry hacking tutorials on popular videosharing platforms.

Keyless entry car technology now accounts for
nearly 50% of all vehicle thefts.79
These attacks are mostly conducted by thieves who get their hands on readily
available devices online. When sold, some sellers ask purchasers not to use them
for criminal activity, but no register or follow-up process exists, leaving black-hat
actors free to carry out attacks unabated.

How hackers might easily steal vehicles80

Step 1: One thief stands close
to the vehicle, sending a signal
to a second thief who is close to
the car owner’s house holding a
hacking device.
Step 2: The thief who is next
to the house holding a second
device guessing where inside
the owner’s key may be.
Step 3: The second thief relays
information from the key (inside
the house) back to the thief who
is standing next to the car.



Step 4: The first thief enters
the car and uses the relayed
signal to unlock the door and
start the engine.


Keyless fobs contain a short-range radio transmitter. When a car’s key fob is
within a certain close proximity to its vehicle, it sends a coded signal by radio
waves to a receiver unit in the car. This signal is then interpreted to actions such
as locking or unlocking the vehicle’s doors, or opening and closing the vehicle’s
Communication between the key fob and the vehicle is subject to exploitation by
devices designed to intercept, interfere, or steal information from a fob’s radio signal.
There are a few types of attacks for exploiting the communication between the
key fob and the vehicle used by hackers and thieves worldwide.





In general, relay attacks are designed similarly to the concept of the Man-inthe-Middle (MitM) attacks and replay attacks (see more on replay attacks
below). These attacks involve the interception of information between
a sender and a receiver at a certain time they communicate, to use the
intercepted information for other means.
Hackers steal a car by intercepting the communication between the key
fob and the vehicle, as a transmitter or a repeater, without manipulating or
changing the content of the communication. By using equipment for carrying
relay attacks, such as relay attack stations, hackers can retransmit the signals
which are constantly broadcast in the communication of key fobs and their
vehicles, as well as amplify or boost the radio signal of a key fob that is out of
range of the car.
This type of attack has become common amongst thieves. Car thieves
intercept the signal from a key fob inside a vehicle owner’s house. Once
locking on to the signal, another device is placed near the car, which in turn
relays a message to unlock and start the vehicle’s engine. Once unlocked
and running, the vehicle can be driven off.

In replay attacks, the hacker intercepts and steals the content of a message
sent from the key fob or the car’s remote, storing it for later use. Once the
relevant message is within the hacker’s possession, they can use it whenever
they desire to carry out an attack, be it unlocking the car’s doors, or starting
the ignition.



key fobs

Jamming the
between a key
fob and a vehicle

Reprogramming key fobs is a method used by hackers who utilize more
sophisticated and expensive technology to reprogram a car’s key fob. By
creating a new key for the car to communicate with, it renders the previous
key unrecognizable. The reprogramming device is legal to obtain and is
mostly used by authorized mechanics and automotive service centers. The
hackers connect the device to the OBD port and program themselves a new
fob. Car thieves who obtain devices of these sorts can gain full control over
the vehicle with little experience.
Car thieves also use a method of jamming the communication between a key
fob and a vehicle to hack into cars. The thieves use signal jammers which
interfere with the proper communication between the key fob and the vehicle
when the vehicle’s owner tries to lock their car, and prevent it from succeeding,
without the car owner realizing that their car had failed to lock. Once the car
owner is out of sight, the thieves are able to open the unlocked doors.

2021 saw theft via manipulation of the keyless entry system increase significantly including
a 93% spike in keyless entry thefts in the UK81. For example, In March 2021, two thieves
managed to unlock a keyless car using a wireless relay device, that received the key fob’s
signal from inside the owner’s house, remotely unlocking it before they drove away82.
In another incident in the UK, a European-made vehicle was hacked and stolen outside its
owner’s home. The hackers used a relay attack device aimed at the house to activate the
ignition and drive away in the stolen car83.
In Germany, hackers compromised and stole a European-made sports car. According to the
police, the thieves gained access and drove away with the vehicle by tampering with the
keyless entry radio signal84.
In September 2021, hackers in the UK were targeting expensive cars including multiple
European luxury-grade vehicles, stealing them using by reprogramming their key fobs and
using practically new keys85.
In Italy during October 2021, a hacker was searching for cars86 that had recently parked.
Immediately after drivers had exited their vehicles and used their key fob to lock the vehicle,
the hacker used a signal jammer to prevent the car’s locking mechanism from engaging. As
the owners walked away the hacker could enter the vehicle and turn on the vehicle.

Tracker, a vehicle managing and tracking service, recorded an increase in vehicle thefts during the
first half of 2021 amongst keyless vehicles just as COVID-19 lockdown restrictions began to ease.
An analysis report by Tracker indicated that relay attacks accounted for 92% of recorded thefts in
2020, a 27% increase over the last five years87.


Thieves only needed to be close to the
key fob for the programmer to pick up and
reproduce its signal.
In November 2021, an American-made vehicle was stolen in Detroit, MI, USA
when thieves hacked the car owner’s key fob to get in, start the car, and drive
away. This incident came along with other incidents in the same area, where
upon the recovery of the stolen vehicles, owners discovered that their key fobs
no longer worked, as the hackers reproduced new key fobs, rendering previous
keys unrecognizable to their vehicle. According to the police, the hackers had an
$8,000 programmer, meaning the thieves only needed to be close to the key fob
for the programmer to pick up and reproduce its signal88.
An internal memo from the Michigan State Police published in February 2021,
showed how thieves were breaking into cars and using a device to program a
new key fob, meaning the original key would no longer work. The Michigan State
Police bulletin said hundreds of European and American OEMs’ vehicles have
been stolen by this method89.
In August 2021, white-hat hackers uncovered that many modern Asian OEMs’
vehicles can be accessed with a replay attack using cheap hardware. The hackers
managed to execute a replay attack and hack into 5 different vehicles which
claimed to harbor this vulnerability. The hacker found that simply recording
signals from the vehicles’ key fobs was enough to compromise the vehicle90.


In-vehicle infotainment (IVI) systems are of the most vulnerable units in
modern vehicles. They are exposed to installed software, apps, and short
term communications such as mobile phones and Bluetooth devices. These
computers are one of the car’s gates to the outside world — the internet.
Drivers frequently connect their devices, such as a smartphone, to a
vehicle’s infotainment system, permitting it to access private data, such as
contacts, messages, and more. This connection poses risks to the vehicle, as
infotainment systems are highly likely to be connected to the vehicle CAN bus.
As IVI systems are the one unit that connects the inner ECUs of the vehicle
to the outside world, it can also be the path of least resistance for malicious
software to enter the internal systems. For example, in May 2021, researchers
published that they had discovered numerous vulnerabilities in a European
OEM’s infotainment system91, which could be exploited in hacking the vehicle’s
internal systems. The hackers conducted a detailed study of the IVI system and
found multiple security flaws that triggered attacks. In a white paper publishing
their findings, the hackers found numerous attack surfaces, including the
Bluetooth stack, Wi-Fi chip, USB functions, JavaScript engine, and third-party
apps in the head unit – the infotainment ECU — in use in some European-made
vehicles since 2018. After finding these bugs, the researchers reached out
to the OEM to report the flaws. Consequently, the OEM began patching the
vulnerabilities three years after the system’s initial rollout.
Furthermore, in January 2021, a vulnerability was found in a Tier-1 semiconductor
manufacturer’s chip, used by OEMs to power in-vehicle infotainment, navigation,
and a 4G LTE modem for connectivity. The vulnerability in the hardware
component can create video playback issues in the infotainment system92.


In April 2021, white-hat researchers managed to hack the ECU that controls the
doors of a North American EV manufacturer’s vehicle with a drone carrying a
Wi-Fi dongle. The hackers exploited vulnerabilities to compromise parked cars
and control the infotainment systems over Wi-Fi93 and were then able to manage
network connections and run commands on the infotainment system of the
vehicle. The researchers noted that it would have been possible for an attacker
to unlock the doors and trunk, change seat positions, and enter both steering and
acceleration mode but not manipulate the vehicle’s driving capabilities.
While Wi-Fi connectivity can be used to be more productive and even entertain
passengers while in transit, it creates an attack surface that, with the right
knowledge, can grant hackers access to a vehicle’s sensitive controller area
network (CAN bus).

With cars containing multiple computers,
connected together in one complex
network, taking advantage of one
vulnerability can give access to multiple
vehicle controls.
All hackers need to do is find a minor vulnerability somewhere within one of the
networks to sneak in.
In June 2021, researchers from a Middle Eastern IoT security firm disclosed a new
set of critical vulnerabilities in a Wi-Fi module94. These vulnerabilities were enough
for a black-hat actor to hijack a device’s wireless communications, potentially
resulting in the manipulation of automotive data. The flaws found in the module,
which is in use in the automotive industry, affect all embedded and IoT devices
that use the component to connect to Wi-Fi networks. They also mentioned that
an attacker would need to be on the same Wi-Fi network as the specified device
module or know the network’s pre-shared key. The researchers stated that new
firmware versions, released after January 2021, include fixes that resolve the issue.


ECUs (Electronic Control Units) are responsible for engine, steering, braking,
windows, keyless entry, and various critical systems, are subjected to interference
or manipulation. Running multiple sophisticated systems simultaneously, hackers
try to manipulate electronic control units to gain control over the functions they
are responsible for.
In June 2021, researchers confirmed the feasibility of vulnerabilities by launching
proof-of-concept attacks on two vehicles. The researchers launched disruption
attacks against the two vehicles95, exploiting the fact that ECUs often implement
a time-out feature that prevents a CAN transceiver from holding the dominant
state for an extended period of time. They managed to shutdown one of the
vehicles’ powertrain ECU and the other vehicle’s power steering ECU.
The researchers worked under the assumption that many modern cars were
likely vulnerable to these kinds of attacks, but an attacker would have to
compromise the vehicle’s network first before launching these types of attacks.
They believe that once an attacker has control over a particular component in
the vehicle, they could then impact the operations of another component while
undetected. Furthermore, the new class of vulnerabilities stem from some
architectural choices that automakers have made in recent years, as most
modern car functions are controlled by one or more ECUs.

Attacks can be launched remotely, without
requiring hardware modifications. Bypassing
several state-of-the-art defenses.
These white-hat hackers found a way to exploit the “peripheral clock gating”
feature implemented in the vehicles to reduce the amount of power the ECUs
consume, which enables ECUs that aren’t actively being used to shut down to
conserve energy. Hackers found a way to control this function and shut down
any ECU they wished. The researchers explained that while some of these
shutdown attacks were shown in prior work, they required either physical access
to cars or hardware modifications. The novel part of their attack was that it could
be launched remotely, without requiring hardware modifications, and it also
bypassed several state-of-the-art defenses.


In an August 2020 incident, a group of researchers worked with more than
10 auto manufacturers and suppliers to assess the hardware and software
of more than 40 ECUs in development. Within those, they found over 300
vulnerabilities. They assigned each vulnerability with a risk score according
to ISO/SAE 21434 and found that all vulnerabilities assigned with a high-risk
score were a result of a fault in the software or OS of the ECU. The results
highlight that the more complex an ECU is, the more vulnerabilities exist in it
and the percentage of the high-risk vulnerabilities rises96.

The On Board Diagnostics (OBD) port allows mechanics to identify problems
in the vehicle mainly by plugging in a dedicated diagnostic dongle, or by using
a software that runs on diagnostic equipment. Ultimately, the main purpose of
the OBD port is to read diagnostics data from ECUs. However, it can be used to
update software or even change ECU memory. Additionally, the OBD port may
be used to connect a device to upload software that can communicate with the
vehicle from anywhere, e.g. a laptop that is connected to the OBD port using a
connector or a ride sharing program that can remotely unlock and start a vehicle.
However, hackers can use a device connected to the OBD port to connect to the
vehicle and manipulate systems through diagnostic protocols.
In an incident that occurred in September 2020, a hacker tried to prevent an
Asian OEM’s EV battery degradation. The hacker developed a CAN-bridge to
hack the CAN message between battery management and vehicle to avoid
degradation. By crafting a new message and sending it to target the battery
management system, the hacker lowered the charging speed and prevented
the battery from heating, a primary cause of degradation97.


there are more lines of code in
the connected car than other
highly sophisticated machines,
including the U.S. Air Force’s
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the
Boeing 787 Dreamliner, or a
NASA space shuttle98. With
each region demanding its own
code to meet local regulations.
Source: EE Times


Modern vehicles contain an estimated 100 ECUs per vehicle99. Many of these are
produced by trusted Tier-1, Tier-2, and periphery vendors.
Each one is important, yet each has the potential for hackers to penetrate internal
systems, gain insights on other vehicles, access centralized servers, and even harm
a driver or a passenger.
In the automotive industry, automotive OEMs and their supply chain companies and
vendors may struggle to follow and manage a bill of materials for a product, be it an
infotainment system or a certain ECU.
As such, a connected car could contain software vulnerabilities within a vehicle’s
hardware components. These supplier manufactured components find their way into
a vehicle without the OEM being able to properly identify the source of a vulnerability.
Even if a consumer did want details of vehicle components, tracking them would be a
daunting task.
Consumers have no choice but to trust car manufacturers and regulatory bodies with
issues that directly relate to their health and well-being. Often, OEMs and federal
bodies do not even have access to the in-depth component data and potential threats
posed by them.
In January 2021 for example, a hacker managed to hack a European Tier-1 giant’s
infotainment unit used in a major Asian OEM’s vehicle100. They found a vulnerability in
infotainment system. By plugging in a USB device, they could gain root shell access
to the system and gain administrator access to install unauthorized software. The
hacker found that the European produced infotainment vulnerability could also affect
more than four additional models and commercial models produced after 2015.
In addition, in 2021 alone, more than a hundred vulnerabilities were found on Tier-2
suppliers’ chips used in the automotive industry. These chips are eventually put into
Tier-1 products that in turn are put into the vehicle101. These vulnerabilities may affect
more than one OEM, as one Tier-1 supplier may supply its products to numerous
OEMs and one Tier-2 supplier may serve various Tier-1 suppliers. Additionally, in
August 2021, a research paper disclosed that a Tier-2 supplier has confirmed a
vulnerability that allows an attacker to gain privileged control of code execution
for a North American EV OEM’s autopilot system102. The attack involves unlocking
a bootloader that’s usually disabled for consumers and intended for laboratory
conditions. The attack is also valid for a European OEM’s infotainment system, as it
uses the Tier-2 supplier’s hardware as well.


A single vulnerability in one of the 100
ECUs is all it takes to make a car harm a
company’s reputation and even endanger
an operator’s life.
In 2021, as supply chains became strained, companies were under increased
pressure to receive the materials they needed and get products to their
customers in a reasonable time frame. To keep companies focused on
cybersecurity, even when under immense pressure, new guidelines and
regulations were coming at a pivotal moment for OEMs, ensuring that
vehicles are properly secured. By following the required procedures, our roads
would be safer and OEMs would be able to ensure reliable operations from
their vehicles years down the road.

Autonomous vehicles, or self-driving cars, are vehicles that operate
autonomously, with or without little human oversight or intervention. By
using sensors and cameras to interpret their environment in every moment,
autonomous vehicles read details and analyze information from the car’s
surroundings to self-perform accordingly.
Autonomous vehicles function according to machine learning and artificial
intelligence-based softwares that are “trained” to read signs and traffic lights
on the road, weather conditions, and other risks or calculations that need to
be constantly considered by a human driver and function according to them.
As such, a dangerous situation can occur when an autonomous vehicle
does not respond to certain inputs. This can result from a scenario where
the vehicle was not “trained” to process specific data it had encountered or
that it could not read the data correctly due to an exterior interference, be it
a scenario of unfamiliar signage or other. Installing and constantly updating
software on vehicles that they are not intended for can create risks and
severe consequences.
Across the globe, roads are structured differently; signs are designed
differently, headlights look different, and not every country has a standardized
set of road markings. OEMs and autonomous vehicles’ software companies
design in-vehicle software uniquely to the regions these are to be driven in.


In September 2021, The software which enables certain American OEM’s
cars to drive autonomously was leaked, enabling hackers outside of the USA
to hit the streets hands-free. The self-driving package was a feature for the
OEM’s vehicles, and certain owners in the USA were granted limited test
access to the ‘beta’ software that enabled the feature. However, cars of that
OEM outside of the US haven’t been eligible for the software, as the machine
learning and artificial intelligence algorithms powering the vehicles were
trained on US road signs. That software has reportedly leaked to the OEM’s
hacker community, granting drivers outside North America the chance to use
the feature. A car owner in Ukraine posted a video of his car running the beta
software in his vehicle as he was driving through the streets of Kyiv. The selfdriving software could be downloaded directly to the OEM’s vehicles. Using
a range of sensors and powerful artificial intelligence enabled drivers to type
in a location to their navigation dependent on information received from
satellites, which the car would then attempt to drive to autonomously103.


In the near future, vehicles will constantly correspond and communicate with
their environment through sensors, cameras, radars, cellular IoT modules, and
more. Vehicles will operate while processing input that their sensors collect from
their surroundings, such as headlights, signs, weather conditions, etc. However,
the profound addition will be that one vehicle would be communicating with
other vehicles on the road and receiving data from other sources, such as a
road’s infrastructure. Vehicles will correspond with their entire environment, from
pedestrians and cyclists that they may come across to navigation satellites and
the traffic light in the next junction.
V2X, or Vehicle-to-Everything, is the term for the communication between a
vehicle and any other entity which could affect or be affected by the vehicle. This
communication system comprises the specific types of communication systems:











This wireless communication technology that would be deployed in tomorrow’s
vehicles, upon which they will be operating, is called Cellular Vehicle-toEverything (C-V2X).
This C-V2X technology has been in testing in the past few years. In 2020, Ford
conducted its final testing of V2I communications equipment in Hunan Province,
China in 2020104 and in 2021, the OEM was already selling cellular vehicle-toeverything (C-V2X) technology in mass production vehicles in its Mach-E105.
Ford’s SYNC+ in-vehicle infotainment system can analyze and provide drivers
with timely road information and recommend appropriate driving speeds to
help drivers avoid waiting at traffic lights, decreasing the chances of red light






With the advancement of technology on the roads, and deployment of
new technologies to connect our vehicles to new sources, such as road
infrastructure, satellites, and electric charging grids to which hundreds and
thousands of vehicles can be connected at the same time, the automotive
industry will be vulnerable to new threats. This will become much more delicate
and dangerous when it comes to autonomous vehicles, which are designed to
operate without or with little intervention or supervision of an in-vehicle driver.
This raises the big question: Are we going to face new attack vectors in 2022?














Regulations as a branding opportunity
The increasing avenues for interacting with a vehicle, whether through a mobile
app, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, keyless fob, etc., also impacts the growing ease of hackers
to manipulate systems for their benefit.
As standards and regulations begin to take effect in July 2022, OEMs will
face an uphill battle in securing all channels that are so prone to human error.
Behaviors such as not changing default passwords, locking a car from a distance
so the signal can be intercepted, or not being vigilant enough in regard to
proper cybersecurity practices can have substantial financial and reputational
repercussions for OEMs, Tier-1s, Tier-2s, and the whole ecosystem.
Manufacturers will have new incentives to reimagine the driver’s experience both
inside and outside the vehicle. This creates an opportunity for brands to establish
themselves as safety-first companies, protecting passengers in case of a crash or
a targeted cyber attack.





Financial impact across the automotive compared to other industries










Data in $Bn

The automotive industry
stands to lose over
$500 billion by 2024107
to cyber attacks, behind
only High tech and Life
Sciences. What does it
look like and how can it
be avoided?

Source: businesswire



With the projected value of the connected car market to reach $215 billion by 2027108,
attacks on the automotive industry will continue to have far-reaching impacts.
In the past number of years, an increased number of companies have fallen
victim to increasingly sophisticated cyber attacks. In some cases, we can still
sense the impact on the industry, as recovery from some attacks can span from
days to months.
In February 2021, a European IT software and service company that provides IT
and product engineering services to the automotive industry and others was hit in
a ransomware attack109, causing the company to experience technical issues with
its customers.
In May 2021, hackers targeted the U.S. manufacturing unit of an Asian OEM,
days after the European subsidiary of the brand was also targeted110. The attack
resulted in exposed financial and customer data being published online.
Besides for OEMs, Tier-1s, and Tier-2s, dealerships are targets for attacks
as well. For example, an attack on an Asian OEM in February 2021 by the
DoppelPaymer ransomware group demanded 404 Bitcoin to return access to
their dealership’s systems. Dealers were unable to sell any vehicles until the
attack was addressed111.


World Economic Forum


Impact Breakdown 2010-2021, based on 900+ automotive-related cyber incidents


Data/Privacy breach


Car theft/Break-ins

Manipulate car systems


Location tracking


Policy violation


Source: Upstream Security


Control car systems


A company’s private data is one of its most significant assets. It includes
customer data, personal information, and even internal trade secrets.
For example, in August 2020 a researcher found a privacy issue in a popular GPS
driving app that was caused by improper management of the API. At the time, if a
user acknowledged a road obstacle by notifying other drivers via the application,
their user ID, user name, and location appeared on the API. An attacker could
leverage this vulnerability by picking multiple locations and periodically calling the
API while crawling the users who confirmed the existence of an obstacle. Over
time, an attacker could build a dictionary of user names and their IDs112.


2021 LED TO

Remote keyless car thefts are becoming increasingly common as there are new
technological ways of unlocking and starting vehicles. These come alongside
the tools and technologies used to manipulate vehicles, which are then sold
on the internet. As a result, car thefts and car break-ins have become a leading
impact of cyber incidents over the past decade. Besides the anguish that the car
owner experiences when their vehicle is broken into and stolen, auto insurance
companies manage the damage and cover the cost for the many drivers whose
cars were hacked. This phenomenon has become a severe problem in many
countries as it is also shown that its impact is one of the most profound in
today’s automotive world. In numbers, car thefts and break-ins accounted for
more than a quarter of the industry’s total number of incidents.
In addition to the frequency of car thefts mentioned above, COVID-19 contributed
to an increase in vehicle car thefts. In the first nine months of 2021, 17,195 cars
were stolen solely in Los Angeles, USA, hitting a record of the highest annual tally
of stolen vehicles in more than a decade113.

Car thefts accounted for 27.9% of all publicly
reported incidents between 2010 and 2021
For example, in September 2021, the New York Attorney General and NYPD
Commissioner announced the indictment of 10 members of an auto theft and
distribution operation for their alleged roles in the theft or criminal possession
of 45 vehicles during a six-month period114. These indictments are related to the




theft and resale of more than 225 vehicles throughout New York City and the
Hudson Valley. According to the police, in a 6 month period, the group scoped
out and targeted cars to steal, obtained key code information for these vehicles
from unlawful websites, and created keys that allowed them to breach and steal
the vehicles in as little as 30 seconds.

Cyber attacks and hacking thefts have increased significantly since the beginning
of the COVID-19 pandemic. Kicking off this new wave of thefts were lockdown
orders that saw their people parking their vehicles for prolonged amounts of time.
This allowed hackers the freedom to scope out vehicles, learn their vulnerabilities,
and take advantage of gaps in their security.
In Los Angeles, USA alone, in the 18 months following the first state-wide stay-athome order, 33,985 vehicles were stolen. This is a 40.6% jump when compared
with the 24,179 vehicles that went missing during the 18 months before this order
went into effect115.
This trend continued after lockdowns were lifted, remaining as high as the mid2020 peak, well into October 2021.
Insurance companies are left to deal with the financial aftermath of this high
number of thefts, giving them incentive to better understand the vectors and
vulnerabilities used to steal vehicles.

40.6% increase in Los Angeles, USA vehicle
thefts during the first 18 months of COVID-19






The last surface of the internet is the dark web, where
malicious activities, crime, and stolen data are available. The
dark web’s name suits it very well; it tries to remain out of the
limelight, is fairly hidden, and requires the user to have prior
knowledge of how to access desired information. Forums
or pages are frequently managed by moderators and
suspicion is always high due to a lack of transparency
amongst users.

Most actors in the dark web use aliases or nicknames while
spoofing their locations to confuse authorities, making it
challenging to track black-hat actors. Some individuals gain
access to the darknet with anonymous credentials through The
Onion Router (Tor), IRC channels, or a P2P network.

Clear Web

The second surface of the internet is the
deep web. This part of the internet contains
information and data that is not indexed
with search engines since they mostly
require an authentication process (e.g., login
to access the information). Deep web data
is inaccessible to the public in many cases.
For the average individual, these include social
media platforms. However, for hackers these
could be imageboards such as 4chan and 8chan,
and even certain profiles on popular social media sites
that require login credentials to access pages.

Automotive & cyber news
Verified researcher’s public blogs/posts
Academic or research papers
Car enthusiasts / Geek forums
Social media
Code-sharing websites
File-sharing websites

Deep Web

The first layer of the internet is the smallest, yet the most
familiar and is commonly referred to as the “clear web” or
the “surface Web”. This part of the internet contains the
information accessible and indexed in search engines
that most people rely on daily.

Private social media groups
Private messaging apps
Paste sites
Private car-tuning forums or hacking

Dark Web

Our internet can be divided into three main surfaces. Access to
each part comes with different criteria, such as demonstrating
a familiarity in the realm.

Malicious paste sites
Illegal marketplaces
Image boards
Closed hacking forums
Illegal services for hire
Legitimate platforms with potentially
malicious actors, e.g. Tor, Telegram, etc


More than 95% of internet activity116 occurs in the deep and dark web. Whether
the information would be accessed using hidden or legitimate routes — most of
the internet is private.

People use these deep web forums to
manipulate and collude to access otherwise
unobtainable resources.
There are numerous methods for engaging with content and other users within
the deep and dark web. Automotive-related content appears throughout deep
and dark web forums, marketplaces, messaging applications, and paste sites.
In many cases, individuals rely on deep and dark web forums to find
information that OEMs keep private and do not want exposed to consumers.
People use this information to pirate-fix their cars or manipulate their cars’
systems. In addition, it is common to see auto parts, components, chips,
softwares, and other items for sale that would be against a manufacturer’s
terms and agreements in a public marketplace. Much of this is done without
the drivers understanding the risks to life and limb by tampering with highly
advanced automotive systems.
Some of these vulnerabilities can impact the automotive and insurance
industries. As individuals tamper with their vehicles, it may cause the vehicle
to report misinformation which appears as legitimate. In an extreme case, it
may be possible to reverse engineer data and access company servers via
authorization granted to vehicles.


TO 2020.


The deep and dark web include automotive-related forums in which
discussions and posts deal with chip tuning, engine tuning, infotainment
cracking, reverse engineering, vehicle software cracking, key-fob modifications,
immobilizer hacking, and the exchange of automotive software. There are also
many general hacking forums that include automotive-related hacks.
People constantly trade information, insights, hacks, and software
manipulations to their needs. ECU tuning is a common discussion in deep and
dark web automotive forums. Among others are infotainment systems hacking,
source codes, data breaches, car hacking tools, tutorials for unauthorized
individuals, and more. Whether for the sake of saving money or under the
guise of Right to Repair, thousands of questions and offers regarding selfprogramming vehicles occur regularly. In addition, ECU remapping lessons,
guides, software, and tuned files demos are easily accessible.

Image taken from
an automotive
forum, where a
member offers
original files,
tuning and
delete solutions
for agricultural

Various outlets, including amateur hacker
forums, have become expanded battlegrounds
that OEMs need to consider when protecting
their vehicles today and into the future.


A darknet market is a commercial website that operates via browsers such
as Tor or I2P. They function primarily as black markets, selling or brokering
transactions involving drugs, cyber-arms, weapons, counterfeit currency, stolen
credit card details and credentials, forged documents, and other illicit goods
as well as the sale of legal products. After discovering the location of a market,
a user must register on the site after which they can browse listings. Some
automotive-related dark web marketplace listings on the Empire and Genesis
markets offered vehicle-related “products” and services like forged documents,
credentials to access user accounts of smart mobility services (such as OEM
connected car services and shared mobility services), or stolen credentials of
automotive application users.

1,000 Gigabytes of
a giant American
dealership put for
sale on the darknet

Automotive cyber threats in the deep web include, but are not limited to:
Steps and guides related to infotainment hacking, CAN bus reverse
engineering, chip tuning, and software hacks or illegal upgrades
The sale or exposure of OEM-related information and credentials stolen
in data breaches
Discussions and sales of tools for vehicle theft or modification,
including key signal grabbers, key fob programmers, GPS jammers,
radar detectors, and more
Hacks or fraud related to car-sharing or ride-sharing accounts
Sales of fake driving licenses or automotive insurance policies


Most common deep and dark web discussions:










Source codes
being leaked
in a deep web

Vehicles data files are common to see, as many car owners submit requests
and receive responses, making them easy to find and familiarize oneself with
common messages. In addition, code grabbers, signal jammers, repeaters, and
key programmers, can be purchased on the deep and dark web creating a low
barrier of entry for individuals who want to hack and steal vehicles. Recent
years have seen an alarming rise for these devices by Upstream’s AutoThreat®
Intelligence analysts, leading to a direct correlation between requests and
publicly reported incidents.


Two giant
Asian OEMs’
data leaked in
the deep and
dark web

Messaging Applications
The use of mobile messaging apps for illicit
activity has been on the rise as more online
activity moves to mobile devices. Users are
actively abusing popular mobile messaging
apps such as Telegram, Discord, Signal, ICQ,
and WhatsApp to share automotive hacking
methods and ideas and trade stolen credit
cards, account credentials, exploitations
of vulnerabilities, leaked source codes,
and malware. These chat applications
have become valuable alternatives to the
secretive forums on the dark web.

The data — personal
information of clients
and their transactions
with the OEM

Hacker claiming
they managed
to exploit a


In the past year, we have seen increased data sharing in the deep and dark web.
Upstream analysts are discovering increasingly higher amounts of information
on unindexed deep and dark websites. Automotive-related searches showed
an increase of 253% in automotive cyber-related incidents found in the deep
and dark web in 2021, compared to 2020. By monitoring the deep and dark
web for automotive cyber threats and incidents as part of the company’s threat
intelligence efforts, Upstream learns and knows automotive-related cyber trends
and occupations before they are out for the world to see. This allows Upstream
to identify and mitigate against new vulnerabilities before they become public
knowledge. New vulnerabilities are often published in the deep and dark web
before their public release; 75% of more than 12,500 CVEs were reported online
before officially entering the database117.
The rising usage in places hidden from OEMs, Tier-1s, and other supply chain
companies on the internet are alarming and should be monitored continuously.
As new regulations and standards come into effect, it is likely to become more
difficult for OEMs and other companies to stay aware of what hackers are
planning against their products.
It is crucial to monitor these forums if manufacturers intend to stay one step
ahead of black-hat actors.

SQLI sold to
car group​​


The world against the dark web
In January 2021, DarkMarket, the world’s largest illegal marketplace on the dark
web, was taken offline in an international operation involving Germany, Australia,
Denmark, Moldova, Ukraine, the United Kingdom (the National Crime Agency),
and the USA (DEA, FBI, and IRS). Europol supported the takedown with specialist
operational analysis and coordinated the cross-border collaborative effort of the
countries involved.
Almost 500,000 users and more than 2,400 sellers with over 320,000
transactions of more than 4,650 bitcoin and 12,800 monero transfers were active
in this marketplace118.

Monitoring the deep and dark web
New automotive-related security vulnerabilities, data breaches of sensitive
information, and other automotive-related cyber threats are consistently
published then discussed on the deep and dark web. It is crucial that stakeholders
keep an eye out and monitor these areas of the internet or risk severe gaps in
their security posture. A key component in ensuring that effective cybersecurity
protections are in place within an organization is knowing when and in what
context an organization and its products are being mentioned, both publicly and
in the shadows. The new WP.29 regulation as well as the ISO/SAE 21434 standard
demand for in-depth threat intelligence; monitoring the deep and dark web as part
of the threat intelligence is integral.
By continuously monitoring the deep and dark web, organizations can reduce
the mitigation time between a discovered vulnerability or security breach and the
time this information reaches the masses. It can also minimize the window of
opportunity that criminals have to make copies of the breached data to sell, and
warns about the potential exploitation of automotive partners, employees, key
executives, and customers. By tracking and monitoring relevant forums, topics,
and marketplaces in the deep and dark web, vital players in the automotive
ecosystem can take actions to implement necessary cybersecurity measures to
prevent the next cyber incident.





The lure of an elevated owner experience alongside new revenue streams is
leaving the days of non-connected vehicles in the rearview mirror, however we
are seeing hackers take advantage of vulnerabilities before OEMs can develop
relevant security measures.
With new standards and regulations, the industry’s push for greater cybersecurity
around their vehicles will continue to be a top priority for OEMs, Tier-1s, and
Tier-2s who wish to stay competitive in today’s landscape.
Regardless, automotive security vulnerabilities and cyber threats remain ever
present. As a result, companies are constantly searching for new ways to address
vulnerabilities and threats to protect both assets and consumers.
As cyber attacks continue to target vehicles, a holistic approach that incorporates
security by design, VSOC implementation, and an impactful multi-layer security
approach is necessary to secure connected vehicles into the future.

Securing the vehicle’s full lifecycle
One of the primary requirements of the current cybersecurity standards and
regulations is that each vehicle must be secured throughout its entire lifecycle,
namely during development, production, and post-production phases. A
typical passenger vehicle can have a lifespan of approximately 12 years while
commercial trucks have a 20 year lifespan, and agricultural vehicles have a
lifespan of upwards of 30 years. This means OEMs must think of how to secure a
product that is potentially operating on decades-old technology.
2022 will be the first year that this will be regulated and standardized through
WP.29 R155 and ISO/SAE 21434. As a result, OEMs and other key stakeholders
must consider using a multi-layered approach if they intend to protect against
today’s and tomorrow’s most advanced cyber attacks.

Protecting against attacks in the supply chain
Until now, Tier-1 and Tier-2 suppliers were not always under scrutiny by OEMs
to disclose their cybersecurity practices. This ran the risk of carrying security
vulnerabilities from third-party vendors directly into an OEMs vehicle on a large
scale, compounding the fear of production interruptions beyond supply chain
bottlenecks. In addition, lax cybersecurity procedures are allowing counterfeit
components to enter legitimate facilities, threatening safety by reducing wear
ratings, overriding safety limits, and more.


To secure the supply chain, both WP.29 R155 & R156 and ISO/SAE 21434
require that OEMs take active responsibility to ensure that suppliers are properly
following appropriate guidelines.
With the new standards and regulations (discussed in Chapter 1), OEMs will be
required to implement proactive practices to ensure component security. Tighter
checks are designed to protect the ecosystem from the hazards of unwanted
parts finding their way into their machines. For example, WP.29 R155 requires
the OEM to assess, treat, and maintain the status of each risk throughout all
stages of vehicle production. They must also create processes to address and
mitigate against future attacks together with their Tier-1 and Tier-2 suppliers.

ISO/SAE 21434 gives guidance on how to carry out the WP.29 R155 requirement
together with suppliers. Amongst other parts of the standards, there are two key
elements that OEMs must address:

Cyber Record
of Capability

OEMs are required to
check with suppliers
regarding their cyber
history. It is the
responsibility of the
OEM to ensure that the
supplier is conducting
ongoing risk vulnerability
and management for all
relevant components.

Define shared

To ensure that nothing is
missed due to a lack of clear
delegation of responsibilities,
cybersecurity responsibilities
are shared. This can be
done using various CIAD
(Cybersecurity Interface
Agreement for Development
methods), such as RASIC

Regardless of the methodology that OEMs and suppliers agree upon, it ultimately
is the responsibility of the OEM to ensure that practices meet or exceed WP.29
R155 & R156 and ISO/SAE 21434 requirements.

Implementing a multi-layered cybersecurity solution
Multi-layered security is already recognized as a standard in IT and enterprise
security. New vulnerabilities continuously arise, pushing businesses to
implement improved security. These include end-point solutions, network
security solutions, cloud security, internal segmentation technology, and more.
As highlighted by Gartner, traditional enterprise SOCs (Security Operation
Centers) leverage endpoint and network detection and response tools together
with SIEM solutions to manage more general IT-related cybersecurity events.


SOC visibility triad


Detection and
Response (EDR)


Detection and
Response (NDR)

Visual representation of a multi-layered SOC approach,
based on Gartner enterprise SOC visibility triad

Applying a SOC approach to vehicles (VSOC) creates a more secure layering
between OEMs, Tier-1s, Telematics Service Providers (TSPs), and other
stakeholders in the ecosystem, minimizing threats and preventing attacks. These
include taking into consideration:


IT network

Automotive cloud

Secures internal
components, preventing
both short and longdistance remote attacks.

Defends an organization’s
servers and IT backend

Cloud security offers a
birdseye view of what’s going
on across vehicles, networks,
and other connected
services, including piecing
together seemingly unrelated
events to identify a multivehicle attack.


Each layer within the automotive infrastructure has its unique challenges,
requiring specialized protection methods at each point. A multi-layered approach,
including a SIEM and a vehicle-focused purpose-built VSOC, can create a potent
team to address these challenges. Upstream’s technology allows VSOCs to
contextualize and understand what is happening to an individual vehicle in its
environment, even drilling down to understand if specific incidents are occuring
only in a specific region or globally.
The Upstream Platform is built to harmoniously work within existing IT
frameworks to deliver a focused Vehicle Detection and Response (VDR) product,
identifying attacks that are unique to the needs of connected vehicles.


Detection and
Response (VDR)


Detection and
Response (NDR)

An impactful multi-layered approach requires a cybersecurity model that is
purpose-built to address the unique needs of today’s connected vehicles.


Security Operations Centers (SOCs) are already a key part of cybersecurity teams
but unlike modern computers, vehicles are constantly in motion, experiencing new
environments and interacting with new inputs thousands of times a minute. The
sophistication of cyber attacks that take advantage of vehicles’ unique experiences
demands that OEMs develop an integrated vehicle-focused SOC (VSOC).
Sometimes referred to as a “vehicle SOC”, “mobility SOC”, or “automotive SOC”,
VSOCs enable cybersecurity for the post-production phase. It is critical in
ensuring the security of connected vehicles and the smart mobility ecosystem,
allowing companies to monitor their entire infrastructure and vehicles in real-time,
and respond in a timely manner to detected threats.

When conducted properly, an effective VSOC:
Has a clear framework detailing the VSOC’s capabilities, components,
and operating model
Defines the strategy and scope including the vision, mission, and charter
of the VSOC
Outlines governance and steering policies, standards, procedures, and
Predicts threats before they emerge by leveraging purple teams, threat
models, and threat intelligence fusion
Detects threats and anomalies in near or real-time
Conducts proactive threat hunting and tradecraft analysis
Performs alert triage and investigation
Builds and maintains end-to-end playbooks to structure and automate
response activities
Ingests data from various automotive-related feeds


First steps to building a VSOC
Transparency is at the heart of any effective VSOC.
Using a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) model is intended to be transferable between
Upstream’s experts and a client and/or partner. The most common two reasons are:

An OEM does not have enough
manpower and/or the right skills to
fully take on the responsibility at
the time of development.

A company’s internal team would
like to work in tandem, ensuring
they have all the necessary
capabilities in place, before bringing
all tasks in-house.

As a first step to building a VSOC, a company should use a framework to
understand the different components and capabilities needed for an effective
department. The structure, development, and operation of the new VSOC can
then be done in-house or with an external party who can pass it off to an in-house
team at a later date.
Upstream Security provides several advantages, including a data management
and cybersecurity platform, purpose-built for connected vehicles, and offers a
VSOC with immediately-available detection capabilities. Automated processes
demand minimal intervention from teams along with customizable parameters to
manage triggered alerts.
Whichever approach you take, securing modern vehicles is vital in securing
consumer trust and growing capabilities throughout the full ecosystem.


A multi-layered approach must also include a layer of proactivity, including the
monitoring of threat intelligence from various sources to bolster threat detection
An industry-specific and purpose-built threat feed that is continuously updated
with new threats, based on surface, deep, and dark web incidents enables OEMs
to remain within compliance guidelines while mitigating against vulnerabilities in
their products.
The introduction of automotive cyber threat intelligence gives each ecosystem
player new possibilities.

Benefits to OEMs

Gain early detection
of cyber threats
against OEM assets

Comply with
automotive regulations
and standards
demanding in-depth
threat intelligence

Manage reputational
risk before threats,
vulnerabilities, or
hacks go public

Build trust with
customers due to
increased awareness
of cyber threats

Monitor and manage
direct threats to the
automotive supply

Gain insights into the
current threat posture
and benchmark it
against peers or
competitors in the
automotive industry

Avoid future warranty
issues by discovering
warranty and policy
violations early

Benefits to Tier-1 and Tier-2 suppliers

Gain OEM and
purchaser trust
through more in-depth
component threat

Avoid future warranty
issues by discovering
warranty and policy
violations early

Monitor popular
forums and chats
to track and
remedy component

Comply with
regulatory demands
by engaging with
and monitoring
vulnerabilities via
threat feeds


Benefits to CISOs

Monitor for leaked
email addresses
to detect potential
credential breaches
that can expose an

Develop steps to
improve IT and
OT security and
implement the
right cybersecurity
measures within
cloud services and
corporate networks

Monitor and analyze
attacks on other
organizations to
develop defense
methods against
similar threats to
their own assets and

Gain a more thorough
understanding of
the cyber threat
landscape to better
report cyber risks
and thus prioritize
action and allocate
resources and budget

Discover actors in
the dark web actively
selling access to
corporate networks

Discover insider
threats to an

Monitor data dumps
that could contain
specific IP addresses

Monitor for leaked
intellectual properties
(such as products’ bill
of materials)

Benefits to VSOC Analysts

Monitor forums’ chat
exchanges to gain
the advanced notice
of new and emerging

Identify new fraud
MOs (modus
operandi), trends, and
threat actors

Recognize and
monitor commonly
pirated features and
illegal modifications

Detect, warn, and
offer next steps
with regards to data
breaches involving
private automotive
customer information

Find new threats
that could disrupt
the organization’s
network, resources,
or business

Remain aware of
new vulnerabilities
or exploits being
sold in underground

Monitor vehiclerelated software
security to issue
necessary OTA

Prevent future
connected vehicle
cyber attacks
by disabling
accounts or notifying
their owners

Track automotiverelated zero-day
vulnerabilities and
exploit kits


Benefits to insurance companies

Enable actuaries to
effectively measure
risk and evaluate
policy costs by
identifying primary
causes, locations,
and methods of
automotive breaches
and hacks

Detect popular
methods of insurance
fraud, such as the
manipulation of
connected vehicle

Identify and
prevent warranty
and/or insurance
policy violations,
such as odometer

Ability to understand
geographical risk
areas in local markets
and assets subsets

Benefits to shared mobility and rental car stakeholders

Identify fraud
related to
identity theft

Detect the sale
of fraudulent car
user and driver

Spot malicious
vendors selling car
sharing/ride-hailing or
rental user data

Monitor hacking
forums for methods
of stealing or
manipulating shared
mobility assets

As companies continue pushing toward greater connectivity in their vehicles,
telematics and other data are becoming increasingly valuable targets for black-hat
hackers. Only automotive-specific threat intelligence products can understand a
vehicle’s context to identify anomalies and prevent the desensitization of cybersecurity
teams by removing false alarms.
It is vital that all CISOs address the growing threat of automotive hacking with a unique
approach that fits their needs.


As mentioned in Chapter 1, the upcoming implementation of new automotive cybersecurity
standards and regulations will be a challenge for the full cybersecurity ecosystem. OEMs that do
not comply will be at risk of losing vital business and consumer trust. Tier-1s, Tier-2s, and other
ecosystem players risk losing vital business to other companies who are compliant.
The concern is twofold. One, some companies find that regulations don’t smoothly fit within
the framework of their business, requiring them to go through great lengths in order to remain
in operation. The other is the hesitancy to let a third party install any piece of hardware or
software into their technologies.
Agentless technologies have the ability to allow companies to continue functioning as-is
(depending on multiple factors) while still complying with both WP.29 R155/R156 and
ISO/SAE 21434.

Preliminary steps toward effective compliance include
Performing an organizational gap analysis to
better understand the weak spots based on risk
assessments, and correlating mitigation demands
in the WP.29 R155 automotive cybersecurity
regulation. Upstream’s gap analysis assessment
tool enables OEMs to see where they stand with
regard to regulatory compliance and offers a quick
overview of areas that may need more attention.

Upstream’s WP.29 Gap Analysis Assessment tool

It is vital to complete an effective risk assessment
where automotive stakeholders can perform
a threat analysis and risk assessment (TARA)
as described in the ISO/SAE 21434 standard
in sections 8.3-8.9. Upstream offers a tool that
allows organizations to analyze the threats to their
assets, calculate the total cybersecurity risk based
on the formulas and matrices provided by the
standard, and generate PDF reports to document
the process and analysis.

Upstream’s ISO/SAE 21434 Threat Analysis and Risk
Assessment (TARA) tool

Building an effective cybersecurity management system requires an OEM to complete three main
steps: learn, assess, and comply. Upstream’s online and in-person trainings, customized tools, and
cybersecurity products, like The Upstream Platform and AutoThreat® Intelligence, help OEMs,
Tier-1 and Tier-2 manufacturers as well as other automotive stakeholders through all three steps
in the process, leading them to compliance and to a safer and more secure vehicle.


Upstream Security provides a cloud-based
data management platform purpose-built for
connected vehicles, delivering unparalleled
automotive cybersecurity detection and
response and data-driven applications.
The Upstream Platform unlocks the value
of vehicle data, empowering customers
to build connected vehicle applications by
transforming highly distributed vehicle data
into centralized, structured, contextualized
data lakes. Coupled with AutoThreat®
Intelligence, the first automotive cybersecurity
threat intelligence solution, Upstream
provides industry-leading cyber threat
protection and actionable insights, seamlessly
integrated into the customer’s environment
and vehicle security operations centers

The Upstream Platform
The Upstream Platform is a cybersecurity
and data management platform for
connected vehicles. The platform utilizes
data normalization and cleansing, digital
twin profiling, mobility intelligence, and AIpowered detection to identify anomalies
in the connected vehicle ecosystem. This
allows The Upstream Platform to offer
unparalleled cybersecurity detection and
response as well as data-driven actionable
insights through mobility-specific
Cloud-based and Agentless
Purpose-built for Connected Vehicles
Powered by data

Upstream’s customers include some of the
world’s leading automotive OEMs, suppliers,
and others, protecting millions of vehicles.

Holistic V-XDR

In the past year, the strong combination of
the Upstream Platform and AutoThreat®
Intelligence has become critical in securing
the automotive industry.

Mobility-specific built-in detectors

The data gathered and analyzed by the
AutoThreat® Intelligence analysis team was
used to create detectors and solutions for
vulnerabilities and flaws seen in the field.
This puts Upstream in front of future threats
that are yet to be known to the industry

Mobility digital twins

Adaptable applications
Actionable insights


Vehicle SOC (VSOC)
Operating at the core of any VSOC, the
Upstream Platform offers unparalleled
automotive cybersecurity capabilities by
detecting known and unknown cyber threats
and improves operational efficiencies by
providing automated workflows adaptable to
the changing cyber threat landscape.

AutoThreat® Intelligence
Upstream’s AutoThreat® Intelligence is the
automotive industry’s leading cyber threat
intelligence and risk assessment solution.
Purpose-built to collect, analyze, and leverage
automotive threat intelligence to empower
unparalleled cybersecurity.

A VSOC powered by Upstream enables:
Easy deployment
Automotive-specific threat detection
Effective cyber risk management
Timely response and mitigation


Industry enriched know-how

Comprehensive incident repository

Seamless integrations

Supply chain insight

Regulatory compliance

Tailor-made threat modeling
Deep and dark web monitoring
Standalone or API
Customized reporting
User friendly


Based on the analysis of recent trends and emerging technologies, Upstream’s team
discussed predictions for 2022. While there are concerns for increased attacks by
black-hat actors and white-hat hackers, there is great opportunity for OEMs and
suppliers to secure vulnerabilities while pushing their technological offerings forward.
What Upstream predicts in 2022:

Attacks will
increasingly target
OEM servers and

Black-hat attacks
will continue to
white-hat hacking

Increasing storage of vehicle data will make any OEM
server more and more appealing. This will catch the
attention of hackers who will look to test their ability
against a major ecosystem player.

In line with previous years, attacks for personal
gain will outpace research-driven hackers. With the
implementation of UNECE WP.29’s R155 & R156 and ISO/
SAE 21434, OEMs, Tier-1s, and Tier-2s have more to lose
than ever before.

will also redefine
automotive data

Regulation will force the ecosystem to better examine their
data, allowing OEMs, Tier-1s, and Tier-2s to better understand
the performance, context, and overall quality of their data.
We predict this will lead to great innovative leaps in the next
generation of vehicles, but will also act as a barrier for foreign
manufacturers looking to sell vehicles in China, as mentioned
in Chapter 1.

Keyless car thefts
will continue to
rise due to ease
of obtaining

The value of new cars keeps them as key targets for
criminals. The ease of obtaining hacking hardware and
tutorials means we can expect to see more cars stolen in
record time.

The chip shortage’s predicted end date keeps
getting pushed back, presenting more opportunities
Vulnerabilities will
for counterfeiters to flood the market with fake
rise due to fraudsters chips that contain yet to be known corruptions.

flooding the market
with counterfeit chips



A greater emphasis
by OEMs on
Software Defined

A majority of components will be primarily enabled
through software. This will pose even more cybesecurity
challenges in the near future as monitoring proper
functionality will require more advanced monitoring and
detection capabilities.

EV charging
stations will
become a growing
battleground for

Hackers in 2021 made known that charging stations are
valuable targets. By exploiting the grid’s network through
physical stations, black-hat actors will be able to steal
data and even disrupt entire fleets.

In Europe we see more and more subscription models for
vehicles. This will increase the need to maintain a digital user
fingerprint for multimodal mobility. It will introduce the user ID
as an additional attack vector.

Greater PII will
be collected
by industry

V2X will
become a new
avenue for

Going forward, hackers will begin tampering
with software, image processing, and other V2X
communication capabilities to influence the on-board
computers which help a vehicle safely engage with its

Smart cities will
begin adopting

Smart cities will begin adopting both existing
and emerging technologies that impact traffic
management and enable greater ease of
communication between infrastructure and vehicles.

Related Topics

BiZZBoard | Blockchain Education Network