The automotive cybersecurity field experienced a noteworthy development in 2023 when an automotive cybersecurity researcher reported that his Toyota RAV4 was hijacked and stolen using a novel theft technique known as CAN injection.
It was an innovative, yet simple technique that showcased the adaptability of attackers against modernized defenses against automotive threats. All that was necessary for the thief to do was find a spot inside the body of the car he could reach into and place there a special device capable of delivering CAN messages to unlock the car and start it up. OEMs are now prompted, once again, to respond and innovate to this novel, yet simple, technique.
In this article, we will delve into the specifics of the incident further, examining its implications and responses to combat this new technique.
However, to fully grasp the incident, it is essential to understand briefly what CAN is and how it operates.
What is CAN?
The CAN protocol functions as a sort of internal neural network, facilitating the transmission of messages to other Electric Control Units (ECUs) in a standardized and reliable manner. Compared to other protocols, CAN excels in its efficiency and resilience. For this reason, CAN stands out as the central medium for intra-vehicular communications among technologically advanced vehicles. Despite originating in the mid-1980s and entering into automotive in the early 1990s, CAN has proven itself still by its widespread adoption and continued use up to this day.
Not only is CAN fast and reliable, but messages are standardized for compatibility across wide ranges of ECUs and devices. This standardization also substantially reduces the amount of wiring to install as communications between ECUs do not have to be one-to-one between every ECU inside the vehicle. Instead, ECUs can be clustered into smaller groups, forming internal networks that optimize communications and increase safety.
Additionally, the decentralized nature of the CAN bus makes this protocol very reliable. It allows every device on the line to send and receive messages even if one ECU goes down. CAN also protects message integrity and correctness by such mechanisms as CRC checks and ACK signaling.
However, a weakness of CAN is that the protocol does not include native protections against message injection. It is up to the OEM to develop and implement methods to detect fraudulent messages and secure standard communications. As the CAN broadcasts communications to all ECUs on the same line, other connected devices can accept the spoofed messages without authentication. It was this inherent weakness that was taken advantage of and caused the theft of the RAV4.
Decoding the CAN Injection Incident: How Manipulated Messages Led to Car Theft
For some time now, automobile theft developed into a cat-and-mouse game in which thieves creatively invent new methods to attack and steal vehicles while manufacturers respond with solutions to combat them. Advanced vehicle technology served to advance the struggle as we see today.
Thieves introduced techniques such as keyless entry, relay attacks, signal jamming and intercepting, OBD (On-Board Diagnostics) port hacking, and key cloning. In response, manufacturers developed robust defenses. Rolling codes, motion sensors, and improved encryption of unlock codes were invented to protect against keyless and relay attacks. Immobilizers were invented to ensure the vehicle could not start without the correct key fob. Improved device software and Intrusion Detection Systems improved communications security. Smartphone applications now have features that improve security. Finally, VSOCs (Vehicle Security Operations Centers) are increasingly deployed to detect fraudulent CAN messages, remote attacks, and any other potential threats to vehicles and fleets.
Despite these protections, who would have thought that an exposed CAN bus would have been the cause of the next trophy hack?
Concerning the theft of the RAV4 mentioned at the beginning it was precisely that. A headlight ECU that could be reached by simply pulling out the bumper was the entry point to get in the vehicle and start it. From that ECU, the attacker injected messages to open the doors and start the engine. The entire key-unlock and start mechanism was, in effect, bypassed.
In general, if the purpose of stealing a vehicle is to sell it, then the methods the thief will use will be both the easiest and the cleanest. A car that is easy to steal with minimal damage caused will have more value than a car broken into but with damage caused during the process.
The internal structure of the CAN network and the physical wiring inside presented itself as a good opportunity to steal the RAV4 relatively cleanly using the new CAN injection technique. All that was necessary was a little manipulation of the bumper to find a place to inject CAN packets.
As explained earlier, ECUs can be clustered into separate networks. In the case of the RAV4, the ECU controlling the headlights shared the same bus line as the ECU controlling the doors and the smart key. This line was connected to a gateway ECU that could transfer messages to ECUs on other lines. Such ECUs included the one controlling the engine. This diagram can be seen in the image below.
While the car is not turned on it maintains a low-energy state and awaits a message, typically an unlock request, to prompt the car to wake up. For instance, when a signal is sent from the key fob to unlock the doors, the transmitted signal initiates an ECU to send messages on the CAN bus to unlock the doors and perform other tasks to prepare the car once the driver enters.
What CAN injection does is upset the communications between the vehicle components by sending fraudulent messages on the bus that mimic real ones. If these fake messages are not caught, then the injection is successful. The thief can now send a “door unlock” message as if from the smart key ECU and the ECU controlling the doors blindly accepts it.
The strategy for attack becomes simple:
- Pull out the bumper enough to expose the headlight ECU.
- Attach a device to it.
- Send messages imitating a “car unlock” sequence from the smart key ECU as if a real request was transmitted from it.
- The ECU controlling the doors receive the message. The key is validated and the doors unlock.
- A message indicating that the key was validated arrives at the gateway ECU and gets transferred to the ECU controlling the engine immobilizer.
- The immobilizer is disabled and the car can start.
- Open the door and drive away.
All the equipment that the thief needed was a tool to pull out the front bumper and a CAN injection tool masquerading as a tiny JBL wireless Bluetooth speaker. The tool was built to send and receive messages, featuring an additional circuit programmed to block other ECUs on the line from sending messages. The additional circuit was essential to:
- Block other ECUs from transmitting data
- Suppress any warnings sent on the bus
- Prevent the spoofed messages from clashing with real messages from the smart key ECU and their resulting errors
The circuit operates through a mechanism known as a dominant override. It maintains the bus in a recessive state by sending bits of value 1 fast enough so that no other ECUs can send messages. Generally, if an ECU wants to begin packet transmission, it will send the dominant bit. However, this injector tool suppresses any sent dominant bit so fast that it does not appear to any potential receiver. The injector sends the recessive bits too quickly for the other ECUs to transmit. Therefore, only recessive 1’s appear. The only exception occurs when the injector tool transmits. This was the final defense the thief had to get past.
Preventing CAN-injection Attacks
To safeguard against the threat posed by CAN-injection attacks, OEMS must enact countermeasures to improve security and further sustain it in response to subsequent attacks.
The first recommendation is to conceal all ECUs deep enough inside the interior. This way, attackers cannot reach them unless they expend considerable effort, most likely resulting in a stolen car with diminished value once stolen.
Another effective defense against such attacks is to employ a mechanism that encrypts messages and requires ECUs to authenticate before sending. SecOC (Security On-board Communication) is an excellent mechanism that implements both. SecOC uses cryptographic techniques such as digital signatures and message authentication codes (MACs) to verify the origin and integrity of messages exchanged between ECUs. The challenge-response mechanism involved in authentication also provides effective protections against replay attacks.
The final piece of advice is for OEMs to submit their vehicles to routine automotive penetration tests performed by experts with up-to-date knowledge in automotive cybersecurity. Regular penetration tests ensure the vehicle’s security posture remains resilient against emerging attack vectors, such as CAN injection, and allow for timely updates and enhancements to counter potential new vulnerabilities.
