Towards a Severity Assessment Method for Potential Cyber Attacks to Connected and Autonomous Vehicles

Table 1

Comparison of CAVs/traditional vehicles/mobile networks.

Compared to traditional vehicles	Compared to computer network/mobile network
1. There are more ECUs and more codes in CAVs [15], which means more data to be processed	1. In addition to information leakage, cyberattacks to CAVs could cause physical damage or even fatal injuries
2. There are multiple communication protocols in CAVs, such as CAN [16], 5G, and DSRC [17]; different communication protocols lead to multiple data formats, which require more preprocessing time	2. CAVs require higher detection accuracy as well as shorter data processing time; in the Europe Metis project, the latency is expected to be less than 5 ms and the accuracy is expected to be 99.999% when transmitting a 1600 bytes data package [18]
3. There are more connected functions, meaning the number of potential attack points is also increasing [19]	3. The application scenarios are more complicated; CAVs are more likely to drive in unregulated areas such as parking lots, highways, and rural areas