Pixels vs. Perils: Safeguarding Automotive Image Sensors in the Cybersecurity Race
                    
                    
                    The transition to autonomous driving and public concerns about driverless vehicles’ safety is making cybersecurity a top priority for automobile original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). The integrity of vehicle systems and the control of the vehicle must be safeguarded to ensure the safety of drivers, passengers, and pedestrians. While the need for cybersecurity in areas like vehicle subsystems connected via networks is evident, it is equally crucial for image sensors used in advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) and driver monitoring.
 
Image sensors serve as the eyes of the vehicle, enabling ADAS functions,   such as lane departure warnings, pedestrian detection, and emergency   braking. They help vehicle systems with assessing the surroundings and   monitoring driver behavior. In the future, they will assist with   identifying and authenticating the car’s users and monitor their vital   signs to enable the onboard computer to assume control if the driver   becomes incapacitated. Therefore, image sensors must remain functional,   especially in the extreme situations that an automobile can encounter.
 
Cybersecurity threats
 
There are four main cybersecurity threats to consider about automotive   image sensors: counterfeiting, tampering, bypassing, and eavesdropping   (for in-cabin in particular).
 
Counterfeiting is on the rise due to the components shortages in the   automotive semiconductor industry. While a non-genuine part may not be   fitted with malicious intent, it can jeopardize system performance. At   best, the ADAS system won’t work at all with the non-genuine part   because of different startup sequences, protocols, firmware and   software. In the worst scenario, the system uses the substandard part   with severely degraded performances that compromise the system’s safety   features.
 
An Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) system operates on the assumption   that its image sensors have specific characteristics (high dynamic   range, low light performance) and are calibrated to these specifications   (exposure control, frame per second (fps)). The counterfeit sensor may   look identical to the original, but its performance and characteristics   can differ significantly. For example, a counterfeit camera might use   the same sensor but may not have been tested to ensure the final   assembly meets performance specifications, which could be a symptom like   a failure at the high end of the operating range. So it appears to work   in average conditions but degrades or simply fails in other conditions   such as hot, sunny days or cold winter nights. If a counterfeit were   really sophisticated, it might mimic the real sensor for initialization   or simple health checks but deliver dramatically lower performance,   either in dynamic range or in frame rate. Since the AEB system is   optimized with the genuine part, the degraded performance of the   counterfeit replacement will also alter the system’s performance – with   potentially tragic consequences. Objects or pedestrians that could be   detected a longer distance in front of the car, leaving seconds of time   to react, may now only be detected within a few meters and insufficient   time to avoid collision (Figure 1).
 

 
Figure 1: The effect of replacing a genuine image sensor with a counterfeit
 
Tampering with the image sensor configuration can also compromise its   performance. A vehicle’s system is programmed to configure the image   sensor to optimize the image quality for the machine vision algorithms   qualified and tested for the specific implementation. However, the   performance can be compromised if someone (or something) modifies that   configuration. It may no longer be possible to guarantee that the scene   facing the car is perceived correctly by the vehicle system (Figure 2).
 

 
Figure 2: The effect of tampering with an image sensor’s settings
 
Bypassing an image sensor entirely can render the vehicle blind,   preventing the detection of potential hazards. An image sensor provides   the image processor with raw video data, which is used to extract   critical information about front-facing obstacles so that the car can   respond appropriately. For example, the system receiving raw video data   from the sensor can detect an approaching vehicle and decide to use the   brakes or steer the car away from the hazard (whichever is the safest   action). If the image sensor has been bypassed, the system is no longer   receiving raw video data and it may not detect the approaching vehicle   at all (Figure 3).
 

 
Figure 3: The effect of bypassing an image sensor
 
Ensuring compliance
 
In 2021 the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)   working group released the UN-R155, a regulation on cybersecurity by   mandating OEMs to put in place a Cybersecurity Management System (CSMS).   This regulation has been binding since July 2022 to address these   rising threats. Automotive suppliers must ensure that all the relevant   components comply with the ISO 21434 cybersecurity standard. While using   ISO 21434-compliant parts alone is not sufficient to be UNECE   compliant, it is a key part of achieving that compliance.
 
onsemi began implementing cybersecurity features in selected ADAS image   sensors in 2018 to make them cybersecurity ready, and those sensors are   on track to be cybersecurity compliant by 2024. The authentication   feature allows onsemi image sensors to prove to the host that they are   genuine. This is achieved by using a certificate chain or a pre-shared   key. To ensure video data integrity, a message authentication code (or   MAC) is used to prove that a video data stream has not been tampered   with between the sensor and the host. Finally, sensor control and   configuration data are protected against tampering with specific key   registers using MACs. Because tampering mitigation protocol varies among   systems, the system processor will be the ultimate decision-maker in   the case of tempering detection.
 
In summary, cybersecurity compliance is vital to prevent automotive   image sensors from becoming the Trojan horses of complex automotive   electronics systems. For OEMs, compliance requires more than the   cybersecurity control circuits in the image sensor. But having   cyber-secured image sensors is a fundamental requirement for enabling   ADAS and in-cabin monitoring systems achieving full cybersecurity   compliance.