{"id":33003,"date":"2017-08-15T19:40:34","date_gmt":"2017-08-15T23:40:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.opensource.im\/uncategorized\/innovation-may-be-outpacing-security-in-cars-itproportal.php"},"modified":"2017-08-15T19:40:34","modified_gmt":"2017-08-15T23:40:34","slug":"innovation-may-be-outpacing-security-in-cars-itproportal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/euvolution.com\/open-source-convergence\/open-source-software\/innovation-may-be-outpacing-security-in-cars-itproportal.php","title":{"rendered":"Innovation may be outpacing security in cars &#8211; ITProPortal"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>    As the UK governments car cybersec guidelines recognise,    innovation may be outpacing security in cars. When you put new    technology into cars, youll inevitably run into security    challenges. For example:  <\/p>\n<p>    Vehicle manufacturers need to adopt a cybersecurity approach    that addresses not only obvious exposures in their cars    software, but also the hidden vulnerabilities that could be    introduced by open source components in that software.  <\/p>\n<p>    Software Used in Autos is Built on a Core of Open    Source  <\/p>\n<p>    Open source use is pervasive across every industry vertical,    including the automotive industry. A study conducted in early    2017 by Black Ducks Center for Open Source Research and    Innovation (COSRI) examining findings from the anonymised data    of more than 1,000 commercial applications found open source    components in 96% of the applications scanned. On average, open    source comprised 36% of the code base in these    applications.  <\/p>\n<p>    When it comes to software, every auto manufacturer and their    suppliers want to spend less time on what are becoming    commoditiessuch as the core operating system and components    connecting the various pieces togetherand focus on features    that will differentiate their brand. The open source model    supports that objective by expediting every aspect of agile    product development.  <\/p>\n<p>    Open source software is not more secure nor less secure than    proprietary software; its software, and therefore will have    vulnerabilities. But the argument could be made that    vulnerabilities in open source are more prone to    attack since those vulnerabilities are often widely reported.    Open source exploits are also often published simultaneously    with the announcement of a vulnerability. With open source    components making up as much as 90 percent or more of the    average commercial application, open source is a rich target    for hackers; a single exploit could compromise multiple    software and applications, giving attackers the biggest bang    for their hacking chops.  <\/p>\n<p>    Whether open source or proprietary code, most known    vulnerabilities also have patches available on the date of    their disclosure. The open source community generally does a    good job in discovering and reporting vulnerabilities. Over    3,600 open source vulnerabilities were reported in 2016 alone.    But an alarming number of companies and individuals simply do    not apply patches, sometimes due to lack of time, money, and    resources or concerns that the patch might break a    currently-working system.   <\/p>\n<p>    In other cases, its a lack of insightpeople or organisations    are simply unaware of a critical vulnerability or its patch    until theyre under attack. Another reason of concern for use    of open source in voting machines is, that unlike most    proprietary software, open source has a pull support model.    That is, you are responsible for keeping track of    the open source you use, as well as monitoring for    vulnerabilities and installing fixes and updates for the open    source your voting machine might use. Unless an organisation is    aware that a vulnerable open source component is in its    software, its highly probable that that component will remain    unpatched and open to exploit.  <\/p>\n<p>    Just as lean manufacturing and ISO-9000 practices brought    greater agility and quality to the automotive industry,    visibility and control over open source will be essential to    maintaining the security of automotive software applications.  <\/p>\n<p>    Examining the Key Principles of Vehicle Cyber    Security   <\/p>\n<p>    The car cybersecurity guidelines follow good security    practices, including executive support (Principle 1), risk    assessments both internally and through the supply chain    (Principle 2), and a plan for addressing vulnerabilities as    they arise (Principle 3). It reflects its automotive and    manufacturing focus most clearly, however, in Principle 6:    the security of all software is managed throughout its    lifetime.  <\/p>\n<p>    To mass produce automobiles and maintain an accurate and    responsive supply chain, a list of parts is required. The    industry solved this over 100 years ago by adopting a bill of    materials listing every part down to the individual screws and    bolts. When a defective part was discovered, using the    bill of materials made it simple to track where those parts    were used and quickly remediate the issue. Principle 6    reimagines this for tracking and maintaining the hundreds of    millions of lines of software in todays cars.  <\/p>\n<p>    The Automotive Supply Chain Makes Tracking Code    Difficult  <\/p>\n<p>    Classically we think of software being created by internal    development teams. But auto manufacturers rely on hundreds of    independent vendors supplying hardware and software components    to Tier 1 and 2 vendors as well as directly to OEMs.   <\/p>\n<p>    The software from each of those vendors is likely to be a mix    of custom code written by the vendor and third-party code, both    proprietary and open source. With tens of millions of lines of    code executing on a growing number of microprocessor-based    electronic control units (ECUs) networked throughout the car,    understanding exactly which open source components are part of    the mix can be extremely difficult for the OEMs. When you add    in the fact that over 3,000 open source vulnerabilities are    reported every year, the security implications are    disturbing.  <\/p>\n<p>    Product Lifecycles Present Long-term Maintenance    Challenges  <\/p>\n<p>    The average cell phone has a life of 2-3 years, and receives    regular operating systems updates and probably hundreds of app    updates each year. Similarly, most laptops are replaced after a    few years of use, and receive regular updates and patches, and    will likely be replaced after 3-5 years. This is the typical    lifecycle software vendors are used to addressing.  <\/p>\n<p>    A modern car, however, is in design for years prior to    production, and the average vehicle may be on the road for    10-15 years. Supporting software over that period of time will    require a different thought process. Vendors (and open source    communities) need to be considered in light of the operational    risk they present. Questions vendors need to ask include:  <\/p>\n<p>    When Car Safety Becomes a Function of Software,    Software Security is Essential  <\/p>\n<p>    Lets be clear. The software included in todays vehicles makes    driving safer. Whether its collision avoidance or    airbags, we have the benefit of sensors and software helping    protect drivers and the general public. The terrorist    truck attack in Berlins Christmas market last year could have    been much worse, had the vehicles anti-collision software not    stopped the truck.   <\/p>\n<p>    The increased use of software and open source requires a new    approach to product safety, and is captured well by the UK    guidelines. When a supplier or auto OEM is not aware all    the open source in use in its products software, it cant    defend against attacks targeting vulnerabilities in those open    source components. As open source use continues to    increase in the auto industry, effective management of open    source security and license compliance risk will become    increasingly important.  <\/p>\n<p>    To defend against open source security threats and compliance    risks, both auto OEMS and their suppliers should adopt open    source management practices that:  <\/p>\n<p>    By integrating risk management processes and automated    solutions into their software supply chain, automakers,    suppliers, and technology companies servicing the automotive    industry can maximise the benefits of open source while    effectively managing their risks.   <\/p>\n<p>    Mike Pittenger, Vice President Security Strategy,    Black Duck Software  <\/p>\n<p>    Image Credit: Gargantiopa \/ Shutterstock  <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>See the rest here:<br \/>\n<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.itproportal.com\/features\/innovation-may-be-outpacing-security-in-cars\/\" title=\"Innovation may be outpacing security in cars - ITProPortal\">Innovation may be outpacing security in cars - ITProPortal<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> As the UK governments car cybersec guidelines recognise, innovation may be outpacing security in cars. When you put new technology into cars, youll inevitably run into security challenges. For example: Vehicle manufacturers need to adopt a cybersecurity approach that addresses not only obvious exposures in their cars software, but also the hidden vulnerabilities that could be introduced by open source components in that software. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-33003","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-open-source-software"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/euvolution.com\/open-source-convergence\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33003"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/euvolution.com\/open-source-convergence\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/euvolution.com\/open-source-convergence\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/euvolution.com\/open-source-convergence\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/euvolution.com\/open-source-convergence\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33003"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/euvolution.com\/open-source-convergence\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33003\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/euvolution.com\/open-source-convergence\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33003"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/euvolution.com\/open-source-convergence\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33003"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/euvolution.com\/open-source-convergence\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33003"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}