Biblio

Designing secure cyber-physical systems (CPS) is a particularly difficult task since security vulnerabilities stem not only from traditional cybersecurity concerns, but also physical ones. Many of the standard methods for CPS design make strong and unverified assumptions about the trustworthiness of physical devices, such as sensors. When these assumptions are violated, subtle inter-domain vulnerabilities are introduced into the system model. In this paper we use formal specification of analysis contracts to expose security assumptions and guarantees of analyses from reliability, control, and sensor security domains. We show that this specification allows us to determine where these assumptions are violated, opening the door to malicious attacks. We demonstrate how this approach can help discover and prevent vulnerabilities using a self-driving car example.

Designing secure cyber-physical systems (CPS) is a particularly difficult task since security vulnerabilities stem not only from traditional cybersecurity concerns, but also physical ones. Many of the standard methods for CPS design make strong and unverified assumptions about the trustworthiness of physical devices, such as sensors. When these assumptions are violated, subtle inter-domain vulnerabilities are introduced into the system model. In this paper we use formal specification of analysis contracts to expose security assumptions and guarantees of analyses from reliability, control, and sensor security domains. We show that this specification allows us to determine where these assumptions are violated, opening the door to malicious attacks. We demonstrate how this approach can help discover and prevent vulnerabilities using a self-driving car example.

We typically only consider running programs that are completely written. Programmers end up inserting ad hoc dummy values into their incomplete programs to receive feedback about dynamic behavior. In this work we suggest an evaluation mechanism for incomplete programs, represented as terms with holes. Rather than immediately failing when a hole is encountered, evaluation propagates holes as far as possible. The result is a substantially tighter development loop.