DESC:SYSTEM TO MITIGATE MANIPULATIONS IN AN ONBOARD NETWORK OF A VEHICLE
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICTIONS
The present application claims priority from Indian Provisional Patent Application No. 202421024545 filed on 27/03/2025, the entirety of which is incorporated herein by a reference.
TECHNICAL FIELD
The present disclosure generally relates to vehicle onboard network security. Further, the present disclosure particularly relates to a system to mitigate manipulations in an onboard network of a vehicle.
BACKGROUND
The increasing reliance on electronic control units for vehicle operations has necessitated the development of robust onboard network security measures. Various communication systems facilitate interactions between vehicle components to enable efficient vehicle control. The adoption of controller area network and ethernet-based communication systems has provided improved data transfer capabilities. However, the integration of such communication systems has also introduced vulnerabilities that can be exploited by unauthorized entities. Further, vehicle security frameworks have evolved to incorporate authentication mechanisms and encryption techniques to prevent unauthorized access to onboard networks. Despite such advancements, conventional vehicle security frameworks remain susceptible to manipulations due to inherent limitations in intrusion detection methodologies and response mechanisms.
Various intrusion detection techniques have been employed to identify anomalies in onboard networks. Signature-based detection techniques analyze predefined patterns of malicious activities to identify unauthorized manipulations. However, reliance on predefined patterns limits adaptability to emerging attack vectors. Further, signature-based detection techniques require frequent updates to maintain effectiveness, thereby increasing computational overhead. Anomaly-based detection techniques leverage statistical and machine learning models to identify deviations from expected behavior. However, anomaly-based detection techniques often generate false positives, leading to unnecessary interventions that disrupt vehicle operations. Furthermore, conventional intrusion detection systems lack effective countermeasure strategies, thereby limiting the capability to mitigate threats in real time.
Existing countermeasure mechanisms focus on isolating compromised components to prevent further damage. Hardware-based isolation techniques physically disconnect affected components from the onboard network to restrict malicious influence. However, hardware-based isolation techniques often lead to partial or complete loss of vehicle operations. Software-based countermeasure mechanisms modify communication parameters to contain security breaches. However, software-based countermeasure mechanisms require extensive validation to prevent unintended disruptions. Furthermore, conventional countermeasure mechanisms do not facilitate controlled recovery of vehicle operations after threat neutralization, thereby leading to prolonged vehicle downtime.
Various network restoration techniques have been implemented to reinstate operational integrity after security threats. Redundant communication pathways have been introduced to enable continued operation despite component failures. However, redundant communication pathways increase design complexity and implementation costs. Adaptive reconfiguration strategies dynamically adjust communication parameters to restore network operations. However, adaptive reconfiguration strategies require extensive computational resources, thereby increasing processing delays. Moreover, existing restoration mechanisms do not differentiate between transient and persistent threats, thereby leading to inefficient recovery strategies.
In light of the above discussion, there exists an urgent need for solutions that overcome the problems associated with conventional systems and techniques for mitigating manipulations in an onboard network of a vehicle.
SUMMARY
The aim of the present disclosure is to detect, analyze, and mitigate manipulations in an onboard network of a vehicle by executing countermeasures and restoring operational stability while preventing unauthorized disruptions.
The present disclosure relates a system and a method to mitigate manipulations in an onboard network of a vehicle. The system and the method aim to detect anomalies associated with manipulations of at least one component of the onboard network, determine the manipulation based on an analysis of anomaly signatures, execute a first countermeasure to transfer the vehicle and the at least one component into a predetermined safe state, and execute a second countermeasure to restore at least a partial operational scope of the vehicle.
In an aspect, the present disclosure provides a system to mitigate manipulations in an onboard network of a vehicle. The system comprises a detection unit to detect an anomaly prevailing in the onboard network, wherein the anomaly is associated with a manipulation of at least one component of the onboard network. A central processing unit receives a signature of the detected anomaly and analyzes the received signature to determine the manipulation. A countermeasure implementation unit executes a first countermeasure based on the determined manipulation, wherein the first countermeasure enables transfer of the vehicle and at least one component of the onboard network into a predetermined safe state. A functional restoration unit executes a second countermeasure subsequent to the first countermeasure, wherein the second countermeasure enables restoration of at least a partial operational scope of the vehicle.
Furthermore, the central processing unit communicates with a remote system to transmit anomaly identification data associated with the determined manipulation, receive an application update configured to close a vulnerable point exploited by the detected manipulation, and implement the application update in the at least one component to restore secure operation. Additionally, the central processing unit applies a weighted anomaly detection model to evaluate multiple signatures of the detected anomaly before determining the manipulation.
Moreover, the countermeasure implementation unit executes a function isolation process, wherein the at least one component is temporarily prevented from interacting with other components within the onboard network. Additionally, the countermeasure implementation unit initiates a controlled power cycle of the at least one component to disrupt unauthorized processes without requiring full deactivation. Further, the countermeasure implementation unit limits an operational scope of the at least one component by restricting communication to a predefined set of authorized nodes within the onboard network. Furthermore, the countermeasure implementation unit selects the first countermeasure based on an anomaly recurrence threshold, wherein the severity of the first countermeasure is escalated if the same anomaly is detected within a predetermined timeframe. Additionally, the countermeasure implementation unit executes a dynamic function reassignment, wherein a function of the at least one component is temporarily assigned to a redundant component within the onboard network to maintain operational stability. Moreover, the countermeasure implementation unit generates a real-time countermeasure execution report, wherein the real-time countermeasure execution report is transmitted to the remote system for verification and auditing purposes.
In another aspect, the present disclosure provides a method to mitigate manipulations in an onboard network of a vehicle. The method comprises detecting an anomaly prevailing in the onboard network, wherein the anomaly is associated with a manipulation affecting at least one component of the onboard network. The method further comprises receiving, by a central processing unit, a signature corresponding to the detected anomaly and analyzing the received signature to determine the manipulation affecting at least one component of the onboard network. A countermeasure implementation unit executes a first countermeasure based on the determined manipulation, wherein the first countermeasure enables transferring of the vehicle and at least one component of the onboard network into a predetermined safe state. A functional restoration unit executes a second countermeasure subsequent to the first countermeasure, wherein the second countermeasure enables restoring at least a partial operational scope of the vehicle.
Furthermore, the functional restoration unit verifies whether the at least one component remains vulnerable to repeated anomalies before reinstating full functionality. Additionally, the functional restoration unit determines whether execution of the first countermeasure necessitates an immediate application update before restoring the at least one component. Moreover, the functional restoration unit retrieves and applies a validated application update from a remote system, wherein the application update is verified against a secure database of trusted application versions before implementation. Further, the functional restoration unit performs a diagnostic verification sequence to make sure that the at least one component operates within predefined safety thresholds after execution of the first countermeasure. Additionally, the functional restoration unit executes a phased restoration process, wherein the at least one component undergoes multiple levels of reactivation to enable gradual recovery of full functionality.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS
The summary above, as well as the following detailed description of illustrative embodiments, is better understood when read in conjunction with the appended drawings. For the purpose of illustrating the present disclosure, exemplary constructions of the disclosure are shown in the drawings. However, the present disclosure is not limited to specific methods and instrumentalities disclosed herein. Moreover, those in the art will understand that the drawings are not to scale. Wherever possible, like elements have been indicated by identical numbers.
Embodiments of the present disclosure will now be described, by way of example only, with reference to the following diagrams wherein:
FIG. 1 illustrates a system 100 to mitigate the manipulations in an onboard network of a vehicle, in accordance with the embodiments of the present disclosure;
FIG. 2 illustrates a method 200 to mitigate manipulations in the onboard network of the vehicle, in accordance with the embodiments of the present disclosure;
FIG. 3 illustrates a state diagram of the system 100 to mitigate manipulations in the onboard network of the vehicle, in accordance with the embodiments of the present disclosure; and
FIG. 4 illustrates a sequential diagram of the system 100 to mitigate manipulations in the onboard network of the vehicle, in accordance with the embodiments of the present disclosure.
In the accompanying drawings, an underlined number is employed to represent an item over which the underlined number is positioned or an item to which the underlined number is adjacent. A non-underlined number relates to an item identified by a line linking the non-underlined number to the item. When a number is non-underlined and accompanied by an associated arrow, the non-underlined number is used to identify a general item at which the arrow is pointing.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
The following detailed description illustrates embodiments of the present disclosure and ways in which they can be implemented. Although some modes of carrying out the present disclosure have been disclosed, those skilled in the art would recognise that other embodiments for carrying out or practising the present disclosure are also possible.
The description set forth below in connection with the appended drawings is intended as a description of certain embodiments of a system to mitigate the manipulations in an onboard network of a vehicle and is not intended to represent the only forms that may be developed or utilised. The description sets forth the various structures and/or functions in connection with the illustrated embodiments; however, it is to be understood that the disclosed embodiments are merely exemplary of the disclosure that may be embodied in various and alternative forms. The figures are not necessarily to scale; some features may be exaggerated or minimised to show details of particular components. Therefore, specific structural and functional details disclosed herein are not to be interpreted as limiting, but merely as a representative basis for teaching one skilled in the art to variously employ the present invention.
While the disclosure is susceptible to various modifications and alternative forms, specific embodiment thereof has been shown by way of example in the drawings and will be described in detail below. It should be understood, however, that it is not intended to limit the disclosure to the particular forms disclosed, but on the contrary, the disclosure is to cover all modifications, equivalents, and alternatives falling within the scope of the disclosure.
In the following detailed description of the embodiments of the disclosure, reference is made to the accompanying drawings, and which are shown by way of illustration specific embodiments in which the disclosure may be practiced. These embodiments are described in sufficient detail to enable those skilled in the art to practice the disclosure, and it is to be understood that other embodiments may be utilized and that changes may be made without departing from the scope of the present disclosure. The following description is, therefore, not to be taken in a limiting sense.
The present disclosure will be described herein below with reference to the accompanying drawings. In the following description, well known functions or constructions are not described in detail since they would obscure the description with unnecessary detail.
As used herein, the term "system" is used to refer to an arrangement of interconnected components that collectively operate to achieve a specific objective. The system may include hardware, software, or a combination thereof to perform designated operations. Additionally, the system may incorporate multiple processing units, storage devices, communication interfaces, and sensors to enable real-time operation. The system may be deployed in various environments, including automotive, industrial, and aerospace applications. Further, the system may be implemented in a distributed or centralized architecture based on operational requirements. The system may integrate with external computing infrastructure to facilitate data exchange and remote monitoring. Additionally, the system may comply with standardized communication protocols to enable compatibility with existing technologies. The system may operate autonomously or under user supervision based on predefined parameters.
As used herein, the term "detection unit" is used to refer to an entity responsible for identifying specific events, patterns, or anomalies within a monitored environment. The detection unit may include hardware components such as sensors, signal processors, and electronic circuits to acquire real-time data. Additionally, the detection unit may incorporate software-based analytics to process collected data and identify deviations from expected behavior. The detection unit may employ various methodologies, including statistical analysis, pattern recognition, and machine learning models, to enhance detection accuracy. Further, the detection unit may be integrated with communication interfaces to transmit identified events to other components for subsequent processing. The detection unit may function continuously or at predefined intervals based on operational requirements.
As used herein, the term "central processing unit" is used to refer to a computational entity responsible for executing instructions, managing data flow, and processing information within a system. The central processing unit may comprise one or more processors, memory units, and control logic to perform arithmetic and logical operations. Additionally, the central processing unit may include specialized processing cores optimized for specific tasks, such as signal processing, encryption, and artificial intelligence-based analysis. The central processing unit may manage real-time data acquisition, perform computational tasks, and generate control signals for other system components. Further, the central processing unit may support multi-threading and parallel processing capabilities to handle complex workloads. The central processing unit may communicate with peripheral devices, external networks, and storage units to facilitate data exchange.
As used herein, the term "countermeasure implementation unit" is used to refer to an entity responsible for executing predefined actions in response to detected threats, anomalies, or security breaches. The countermeasure implementation unit may include hardware components, software routines, or a combination thereof to mitigate identified risks. Additionally, the countermeasure implementation unit may operate in real time to prevent unauthorized access, data manipulation, or system compromise. The countermeasure implementation unit may initiate various defensive measures, such as access restrictions, isolation protocols, or system reconfigurations, based on the severity of the detected issue. Further, the countermeasure implementation unit may coordinate with other components to execute adaptive countermeasures tailored to specific threat scenarios. The countermeasure implementation unit may utilize predefined policies, rule-based logic, or dynamic threat assessment mechanisms to determine appropriate responses. Additionally, the countermeasure implementation unit may maintain logs of executed actions for audit and compliance purposes. The countermeasure implementation unit may undergo periodic updates to enhance response strategies and security measures.
As used herein, the term "functional restoration unit" is used to refer to an entity responsible for reinstating operational capabilities following the execution of defensive measures. The functional restoration unit may include hardware circuits, software routines, and diagnostic tools to assess system integrity and restore affected components. Additionally, the functional restoration unit may evaluate whether affected components require recalibration, reconfiguration, or software updates before resuming operation. The functional restoration unit may initiate a staged recovery process to prevent further disruptions and maintain system stability. Further, the functional restoration unit may perform validation checks to confirm successful restoration and identify residual vulnerabilities. The functional restoration unit may coordinate with external systems to retrieve verified recovery instructions or security patches.
FIG. 1 illustrates a system 100 to mitigate the manipulations in an onboard network of a vehicle, in accordance with the embodiments of the present disclosure. The system 100 comprises a detection unit 102 that detects an anomaly prevailing in the onboard network of the vehicle, wherein the anomaly is associated with a manipulation of at least one component of the onboard network. The detection unit 102 comprises one or more sensors, signal acquisition circuits, and processing elements to monitor real-time data exchanged within the onboard network. The detection unit 102 analyzes communication signals, voltage fluctuations, timing inconsistencies, and data packets to identify deviations from predefined operational parameters. The detection unit 102 employs statistical models and rule-based detection mechanisms to differentiate between normal variations and anomalies indicative of a security breach. The detection unit 102 correlates multiple data sources to refine anomaly detection accuracy and reduce false positives. The detection unit 102 may implement adaptive thresholding to dynamically adjust detection sensitivity based on environmental conditions and historical anomaly data. The detection unit 102 transmits anomaly identification data to other components for further analysis and response. The detection unit 102 may operate continuously or at predefined intervals to balance computational efficiency with security monitoring requirements. The detection unit 102 may support integration with remote diagnostic systems to facilitate external threat intelligence analysis.
In an embodiment, the system 100 comprises a central processing unit 104 that receives a signature of the detected anomaly and analyzes the received signature to determine the manipulation. The central processing unit 104 comprises one or more processing cores, memory modules, and data interfaces to execute computational tasks related to anomaly classification and manipulation determination. The central processing unit 104 retrieves anomaly signature patterns from a stored database and compares the received signature against historical records to identify attack vectors. The central processing unit 104 evaluates contextual parameters, including source and destination addresses, frequency of occurrence, and payload characteristics, to assess the likelihood of manipulation. The central processing unit 104 may implement machine learning models trained on known manipulation scenarios to enhance classification accuracy. The central processing unit 104 prioritizes detected anomalies based on risk assessment criteria and determines an appropriate response strategy. The central processing unit 104 may generate a manipulation report containing relevant metadata, including timestamps, affected components, and inferred attack methods. The central processing unit 104 may establish communication with a remote system to verify anomaly classification and obtain supplemental security data. The central processing unit 104 may log analysis results for forensic investigation and regulatory compliance purposes. The central processing unit 104 transmits manipulation determination data to other components for execution of necessary countermeasures.
In an embodiment, the system 100 comprises a countermeasure implementation unit 106 that executes a first countermeasure based on the determined manipulation, wherein the first countermeasure enables transfer of the vehicle and at least one component of the onboard network into a predetermined safe state. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 comprises control circuits, signal routing mechanisms, and command execution logic to initiate defensive actions. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 evaluates the severity of the manipulation and selects an appropriate response strategy from a predefined set of countermeasures. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 may initiate communication isolation procedures to prevent further spread of the manipulation within the onboard network. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 may modify access control parameters to restrict interaction with compromised components. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 may engage failsafe mechanisms, including deactivation of affected subsystems or enforcement of predefined operational limits. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 may escalate response severity based on anomaly recurrence trends. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 generates a countermeasure execution report containing details of actions taken, affected subsystems, and residual risks. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 may transmit countermeasure execution data to a remote system for auditing and verification purposes. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 may implement security-hardening procedures post-execution to mitigate future exploitation of identified vulnerabilities.
In an embodiment, the system 100 comprises a functional restoration unit 108 that executes a second countermeasure subsequent to the first countermeasure, wherein the second countermeasure enables restoration of at least a partial functional scope of the vehicle. The functional restoration unit 108 comprises reconfiguration circuits, diagnostic modules, and control logic to reinstate operational integrity following execution of countermeasures. The functional restoration unit 108 evaluates affected components and determines an appropriate restoration sequence to minimize operational disruptions. The functional restoration unit 108 may retrieve secure system parameters and apply validated recovery instructions to reinstate normal operations. The functional restoration unit 108 may verify system stability through diagnostic tests before allowing resumption of full functionality. The functional restoration unit 108 may implement staged recovery procedures, wherein affected components undergo incremental reactivation to make sure controlled restoration. The functional restoration unit 108 may interact with a remote system to obtain verification of successful restoration and retrieve software patches, if required. The functional restoration unit 108 maintains logs of restoration activities, including timestamps, affected components, and recovery outcomes, for auditing and compliance tracking.
In an embodiment, the central processing unit 104 may communicate with a remote system to transmit anomaly identification data associated with a determined manipulation within an onboard network. The central processing unit 104 establishes a secure data exchange channel with the remote system using encrypted communication protocols to prevent unauthorized interception. The central processing unit 104 transmits anomaly identification data, including detected anomaly signatures, associated timestamps, affected components, and attack vectors. The central processing unit 104 receives an application update from the remote system, wherein the application update is configured to close a vulnerable point exploited by the detected manipulation. The central processing unit 104 verifies the integrity of the received application update by performing cryptographic validation against a secure repository of authenticated software versions. The central processing unit 104 initiates an implementation sequence, wherein the application update is installed within at least one component affected by the manipulation. The central processing unit 104 monitors the update process and performs post-installation validation to confirm successful integration. The central processing unit 104 may generate a status report indicating the completion of the update process and transmit said report to the remote system for verification.
In an embodiment, the central processing unit 104 may apply a weighted anomaly detection model to evaluate multiple signatures of a detected anomaly before determining a manipulation. The central processing unit 104 receives multiple anomaly signatures detected within an onboard network and applies a weighted anomaly detection model to assess the severity and correlation of each signature. The central processing unit 104 assigns weighted values to anomaly signatures based on predefined threat classification parameters, including frequency of occurrence, source credibility, and deviation from baseline operational behavior. The central processing unit 104 computes a cumulative risk score for each anomaly based on the assigned weights and determines whether an anomaly corresponds to a legitimate manipulation. The central processing unit 104 prioritizes anomalies with high cumulative risk scores for further analysis and countermeasure execution. The central processing unit 104 may retrieve historical anomaly datasets to refine weighted parameters and improve detection accuracy. The central processing unit 104 may incorporate adaptive learning mechanisms to adjust weighting factors dynamically based on evolving network conditions and emerging manipulation techniques. The central processing unit 104 logs all anomaly evaluations and assigned risk scores for future reference and forensic investigation. The central processing unit 104 transmits anomaly classification data to the countermeasure implementation unit 106 for execution of appropriate defensive actions.
In an embodiment, the countermeasure implementation unit 106 may execute a function isolation process, wherein at least one component affected by a manipulation is temporarily prevented from interacting with other components within an onboard network. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 identifies the manipulated component and initiates an isolation sequence to restrict data exchange with unaffected components. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 modifies communication parameters, including access control lists, data routing rules, and message authentication settings, to prevent further propagation of malicious activity. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 may enforce hardware-level isolation by deactivating physical communication interfaces of the manipulated component. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 continuously monitors the isolated component for further anomalies and initiates additional security measures if unauthorized activity persists. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 may coordinate with a remote system to retrieve forensic analysis data for assessing recovery actions.
In an embodiment, the countermeasure implementation unit 106 may initiate a controlled power cycle of at least one component affected by a manipulation to disrupt unauthorized processes without requiring full deactivation. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 assesses the severity of the manipulation and determines whether a power cycle is necessary to terminate unauthorized processes. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 generates a power cycle command that allows the affected component to restart while retaining system parameters. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 transmits the power cycle command through secure control channels to prevent external interference. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 verifies that unauthorized processes are terminated upon restart and monitors component behavior for residual anomalies. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 may implement a staged power cycle approach, wherein the affected component undergoes sequential restarts with incremental configuration adjustments to maintain stability. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 may retrieve recovery guidance from a remote system before executing a power cycle on a subsystem.
In an embodiment, the countermeasure implementation unit 106 may limit an operational scope of at least one component affected by a manipulation by restricting communication to a predefined set of authorized nodes within an onboard network. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 identifies affected communication pathways and implements access control policies to limit interaction to verified nodes. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 modifies message routing configurations to enforce restricted communication channels, making sure that only authorized entities can exchange data with the affected component. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 verifies the integrity of authorized nodes by performing identity validation checks to prevent unauthorized spoofing. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 continuously monitors data exchanges to detect any attempts to bypass communication restrictions. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 may dynamically adjust access permissions based on operational requirements and security threat levels. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 generates audit logs containing restricted communication activity for security analysis and compliance reporting.
In an embodiment, the countermeasure implementation unit 106 may select the first countermeasure based on an anomaly recurrence threshold, wherein the severity of the first countermeasure is escalated if the same anomaly is detected within a predetermined timeframe. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 continuously monitors detected anomalies and maintains a historical anomaly database to track recurrence patterns. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 evaluates whether a previously mitigated anomaly has reoccurred within a defined observation period. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 assigns a severity level to each anomaly instance based on frequency, impact, and deviation from normal operating parameters. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 escalates the response strategy if multiple occurrences of the same anomaly exceed a predetermined threshold. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 may implement incremental countermeasures, wherein initial occurrences trigger non-disruptive responses such as access restriction, whereas repeated occurrences result in more aggressive interventions, including communication lockdowns or system reconfigurations. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 dynamically adjusts escalation thresholds based on real-time risk assessment and predefined security policies. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 communicates with a central processing unit 104 to correlate anomaly data across multiple components, enabling accurate recurrence tracking. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 may transmit anomaly recurrence logs to a remote system for validation and forensic investigation.
In an embodiment, the countermeasure implementation unit 106 may execute a dynamic function reassignment, wherein a function of at least one component affected by a manipulation is temporarily assigned to a redundant component within an onboard network to maintain operational stability. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 identifies the affected component and determines whether an alternative component can assume operational responsibilities. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 retrieves system configuration data to identify redundant components capable of performing the same function. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 initiates a reassignment process, wherein data flow, processing responsibilities, and control signals are redirected to the redundant component. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 verifies the integrity of the reassigned function by conducting validation checks to assure that the redundant component operates within predefined performance parameters. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 continuously monitors the redundant component for anomalies to prevent cascading failures. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 may implement a gradual transition strategy, wherein both the affected and redundant components operate in parallel for a defined stabilization period before full transfer of responsibility. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 may interact with a remote system to retrieve additional configuration instructions or perform security verification before finalizing the reassignment.
In an embodiment, the countermeasure implementation unit 106 may generate a real-time countermeasure execution report, wherein the real-time countermeasure execution report is transmitted to a remote system for verification and auditing purposes. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 collects execution data related to implemented countermeasures, including timestamps, affected components, response strategies, and mitigation outcomes. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 formats the collected data into a report that adheres to predefined security reporting standards. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 encrypts the report before transmission to enable secure communication with the remote system. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 may include diagnostic metadata, performance logs, and security verification results within the report to facilitate analysis. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 transmits the report in real time or at predefined intervals based on operational requirements. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 may store a local copy of the report for historical tracking and forensic investigation. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 may receive acknowledgment from the remote system confirming receipt and validation of the transmitted report. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 may implement automatic report retransmission if communication failures prevent successful delivery.
FIG. 2 illustrates a method 200 to mitigate manipulations in the onboard network of the vehicle, in accordance with the embodiments of the present disclosure. The process begins with detect anomaly (at step 202), where the system identifies an anomaly associated with a manipulation affecting at least one component of the onboard network. Following detection, the system transitions to receive anomaly signature (at step 204), wherein a central processing unit receives an anomaly signature containing relevant attributes of the detected manipulation. The process proceeds to analyze anomaly signature (at step 206), where the received anomaly signature is evaluated to determine the nature of the manipulation affecting the onboard network. Based on the analysis, the system advances to execute first countermeasure (at step 208), where a countermeasure implementation unit initiates corrective actions to transfer the vehicle and affected component into a predetermined safe state. Subsequently, the system enters execute second countermeasure (at step 210), wherein a functional restoration unit restores at least a partial operational scope of the vehicle following the execution of the first countermeasure.
In an embodiment, the method 200 may further comprise verifying, by the functional restoration unit 108, whether at least one component remains vulnerable to repeated anomalies before reinstating full functionality. The functional restoration unit 108 performs a post-countermeasure assessment to determine whether the component has successfully recovered from the manipulation or remains susceptible to further exploitation. The functional restoration unit 108 conducts diagnostic evaluations, including integrity checks, self-tests, and anomaly correlation analysis, to identify residual vulnerabilities. The functional restoration unit 108 retrieves historical anomaly data and cross-references previous manipulation patterns to assess whether the affected component is prone to repeated attacks. The functional restoration unit 108 may implement a controlled observation period, wherein real-time monitoring is conducted before fully reinstating operational capabilities. The functional restoration unit 108 communicates with a central processing unit 104 to analyze network-wide security conditions and determine if additional countermeasures are necessary. The functional restoration unit 108 may initiate partial functionality restoration while retaining restrictive security measures if the component remains at risk. The functional restoration unit 108 may generate a vulnerability report summarizing detected weaknesses and transmit said report to a remote system for validation.
In an embodiment, the method 200 may further comprise determining, by the functional restoration unit 108, whether execution of a first countermeasure necessitates an immediate application update before restoring at least one component. The functional restoration unit 108 evaluates whether the countermeasure applied to mitigate a manipulation has introduced operational constraints or security gaps requiring an immediate software update. The functional restoration unit 108 retrieves system configuration parameters and assesses compatibility with existing security policies. The functional restoration unit 108 may analyze vulnerability reports, anomaly recurrence logs, and forensic investigation data to determine whether an update is essential for maintaining operational integrity. The functional restoration unit 108 communicates with a central processing unit 104 to verify whether an authorized application update is available from a remote system. The functional restoration unit 108 may restrict full functionality restoration until a validated application update is applied. The functional restoration unit 108 may transmit a request to a remote system to obtain updated security patches tailored to the identified vulnerability.
In an embodiment, the method 200 further may comprise retrieving and applying, by the functional restoration unit 108, a validated application update from a remote system, wherein the application update is verified against a secure database of trusted application versions before implementation. The functional restoration unit 108 establishes a secure communication channel with the remote system to request and retrieve the application update. The functional restoration unit 108 verifies the authenticity and integrity of the received update by performing cryptographic validation against a repository of digitally signed software versions. The functional restoration unit 108 analyzes dependency requirements and compatibility factors to enable integration with existing system configurations. The functional restoration unit 108 initiates an update implementation sequence, wherein the application update is installed incrementally to prevent disruption of essential operations. The functional restoration unit 108 performs post-update validation by executing system diagnostics and operational performance assessments. The functional restoration unit 108 transmits an update completion report to a remote system, confirming the successful installation and verification of the applied update.
In an embodiment, the method 200 may further comprise performing, by the functional restoration unit 108, a diagnostic verification sequence to make sure that at least one component operates within predefined safety thresholds after execution of a first countermeasure. The functional restoration unit 108 initiates a validation process, wherein diagnostic routines are executed to confirm system stability following the implementation of security measures. The functional restoration unit 108 monitors system performance metrics, including response times, communication integrity, and error rates, to verify operational consistency. The functional restoration unit 108 cross-references historical operational benchmarks to detect deviations that may indicate residual instability. The functional restoration unit 108 may retrieve predefined safety criteria from a stored database to compare diagnostic results against established performance thresholds. The functional restoration unit 108 transmits verification results to a central processing unit 104 for further analysis and decision-making. The functional restoration unit 108 may engage a remote system to conduct an independent validation assessment before reinstating full functionality.
In an embodiment, the method 200 may further comprise executing, by the functional restoration unit 108, a phased restoration process, wherein at least one component undergoes multiple levels of reactivation to make sure gradual recovery of full functionality. The functional restoration unit 108 implements a recovery sequence, wherein incremental activation stages are performed to prevent sudden system disruptions. The functional restoration unit 108 initially restores basic operational capabilities while maintaining restrictive security parameters. The functional restoration unit 108 subsequently enables advanced functionalities in a controlled manner, assuring that each stage of restoration is validated before progressing to the next. The functional restoration unit 108 continuously monitors system performance and security parameters throughout the restoration process to detect anomalies. The functional restoration unit 108 may engage redundancy mechanisms to maintain essential services during transitional recovery phases. The functional restoration unit 108 may communicate with a central processing unit 104 to adjust restoration parameters based on real-time system conditions.
In an embodiment, the detection unit 102 detects an anomaly prevailing in an onboard network of a vehicle, wherein the anomaly is associated with a manipulation of at least one component of the onboard network. The detection unit 102 enables real-time monitoring of communication signals and data exchanges, allowing for immediate identification of deviations from predefined operational parameters. The detection unit 102 prevents unauthorized modifications from propagating within the onboard network by detecting anomalies at an early stage. The detection unit 102 enhances system security by identifying threats before they compromise vehicle operation. The detection unit 102 allows for automated anomaly detection without requiring continuous human intervention. The detection unit 102 supports adaptive thresholding, making sure that detection parameters adjust dynamically to changes in operational conditions. The detection unit 102 reduces the risk of false positives by correlating multiple data points before flagging an anomaly.
In an embodiment, the central processing unit 104 receives a signature of the detected anomaly and analyzes the received signature to determine the manipulation. The central processing unit 104 processes anomaly signatures in real time, reducing response time to threats. The central processing unit 104 utilizes stored anomaly patterns to compare detected anomalies with previously recorded manipulation attempts, improving detection accuracy. The central processing unit 104 enables an approach to manipulation identification, making sure that threats are classified based on severity and impact. The central processing unit 104 allows for automated decision-making by evaluating multiple anomaly signatures against predefined security criteria. The central processing unit 104 transmits manipulation determination results to other components, facilitating a coordinated response to identified threats. The central processing unit 104 supports communication with external security databases, enabling real-time updates to anomaly detection models. The central processing unit 104 maintains detailed logs of analyzed anomaly signatures, allowing for future forensic investigation.
In an embodiment, a countermeasure implementation unit 106 executes a first countermeasure based on the determined manipulation, wherein the first countermeasure enables transfer of the vehicle and at least one component of the onboard network into a predetermined safe state. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 mitigates the impact of detected manipulations by isolating affected components. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 enhances system resilience by preventing unauthorized modifications from spreading within the onboard network. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 assures controlled execution of countermeasures, minimizing disruption to unaffected components. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 dynamically adjusts the severity of countermeasures based on the nature of the detected manipulation. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 allows for automated response execution, reducing dependence on manual security interventions. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 logs all countermeasure actions, providing traceability for auditing and compliance purposes.
In an embodiment, the functional restoration unit 108 executes a second countermeasure subsequent to the first countermeasure, wherein the second countermeasure enables restoration of at least a partial functional scope of the vehicle. The functional restoration unit 108 affirms that operational capabilities are reinstated efficiently following countermeasure execution. The functional restoration unit 108 enables controlled recovery, minimizing downtime associated with manipulation mitigation. The functional restoration unit 108 prioritizes restoration steps to assure that essential components resume operation first. The functional restoration unit 108 verifies the stability of restored components before allowing full system reactivation. The functional restoration unit 108 maintains restoration logs, assuring traceability of all recovery actions. The functional restoration unit 108 interacts with a central processing unit 104 to determine whether additional security updates are required before finalizing restoration. The functional restoration unit 108 supports phased recovery, allowing incremental reactivation of affected components based on security clearance.
In an embodiment, the central processing unit 104 communicates with a remote system to transmit anomaly identification data associated with the determined manipulation within an onboard network. The central processing unit 104 establishes a secure communication channel, allowing for real-time exchange of security-related information. The central processing unit 104 transmits detailed anomaly identification data, including detected signatures, timestamps, and affected components, to the remote system for additional threat analysis. The central processing unit 104 enhances security adaptability by integrating external security intelligence, allowing anomaly detection models to be updated based on emerging threats. The central processing unit 104 receives an application update configured to close a vulnerable point exploited by the detected manipulation, making sure that future exploitations of the same vulnerability are prevented. The central processing unit 104 verifies the authenticity and integrity of the received application update before initiating the implementation process. The central processing unit 104 applies the validated application update to the affected component, making sure that security measures are reinforced without disrupting normal vehicle operations. The central processing unit 104 maintains logs of all transmitted and received security updates, providing a traceable record of vulnerability mitigation actions.
In an embodiment, the central processing unit 104 applies a weighted anomaly detection model to evaluate multiple signatures of the detected anomaly before determining the manipulation. The central processing unit 104 improves detection accuracy by assigning weighted values to multiple detected signatures based on threat classification parameters such as frequency, severity, and historical attack patterns. The central processing unit 104 makes sure that minor deviations do not trigger unnecessary countermeasures by prioritizing high-risk anomalies for further analysis. The central processing unit 104 dynamically adjusts weight factors based on evolving onboard network conditions, allowing real-time adaptability to emerging attack strategies. The central processing unit 104 cross-references detected signatures with stored anomaly datasets, refining anomaly classification based on prior occurrences. The central processing unit 104 minimizes false positives by evaluating multiple contributing factors before determining the manipulation. The central processing unit 104 enables an approach to anomaly classification, reducing computational overhead associated with processing large volumes of network activity data. The central processing unit 104 transmits weighted analysis results to a countermeasure implementation unit 106, facilitating an optimized response to identified security threats.
In an embodiment, the countermeasure implementation unit 106 executes a function isolation process, wherein at least one component affected by a manipulation is temporarily prevented from interacting with other components within an onboard network. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 restricts data flow between the manipulated component and unaffected network elements, preventing further spread of unauthorized modifications. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 applies access control policies to isolate the affected component without requiring a complete system shutdown. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 enhances onboard network resilience by maintaining partial operational continuity while isolating compromised elements. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 supports adaptive isolation mechanisms, adjusting the level of restriction based on the severity of the manipulation. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 continuously monitors the isolated component for further unauthorized activity, affirming that containment measures remain effective. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 interacts with a central processing unit 104 to assess the viability of reintegrating the affected component into normal operation. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 logs isolation events, allowing for forensic analysis and security auditing.
In an embodiment, the countermeasure implementation unit 106 initiates a controlled power cycle of at least one component affected by a manipulation to disrupt unauthorized processes without requiring full deactivation. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 restores operational stability by terminating unauthorized code execution through a restart process. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 executes power cycling in a manner that prevents unintended data loss or system malfunctions. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 assures that normal functionality is reinstated after unauthorized processes are cleared. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 implements controlled restart intervals, allowing essential components to resume operations with minimal disruption. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 verifies post-restart integrity, affirming that unauthorized modifications do not persist following the power cycle. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 interacts with a functional restoration unit 108 to determine whether additional remediation actions are required after the power cycle. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 maintains a log of all power cycle executions, allowing for security tracking and future threat analysis.
In an embodiment, the countermeasure implementation unit 106 limits an operational scope of at least one component affected by a manipulation by restricting communication to a predefined set of authorized nodes within an onboard network. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 prevents unauthorized entities from establishing unauthorized communication links with the affected component. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 enforces predefined security policies that define authorized communication nodes, preventing data exchanges outside approved network pathways. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 makes sure that the affected component operates within a restricted environment while undergoing security remediation. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 dynamically adjusts access restrictions based on real-time security assessments, allowing for adaptive control over onboard network interactions. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 continuously monitors network activity to detect unauthorized attempts to bypass communication restrictions. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 transmits restricted access logs to a central processing unit 104 for further security evaluation. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 maintains compliance with onboard network security policies by enforcing communication control mechanisms at both software and hardware levels.
In an embodiment, the central processing unit 104 communicates with a remote system to transmit anomaly identification data associated with the determined manipulation within an onboard network. The central processing unit 104 establishes a secure communication channel, allowing for real-time exchange of security-related information. The central processing unit 104 transmits detailed anomaly identification data, including detected signatures, timestamps, and affected components, to the remote system for additional threat analysis. The central processing unit 104 enhances security adaptability by integrating external security intelligence, allowing anomaly detection models to be updated based on emerging threats. The central processing unit 104 receives an application update configured to close a vulnerable point exploited by the detected manipulation, making sure that future exploitations of the same vulnerability are prevented. The central processing unit 104 verifies the authenticity and integrity of the received application update before initiating the implementation process. The central processing unit 104 applies the validated application update to the affected component, making sure that security measures are reinforced without disrupting normal vehicle operations. The central processing unit 104 maintains logs of all transmitted and received security updates, providing a traceable record of vulnerability mitigation actions.
In an embodiment, the central processing unit 104 applies a weighted anomaly detection model to evaluate multiple signatures of the detected anomaly before determining the manipulation. The central processing unit 104 improves detection accuracy by assigning weighted values to multiple detected signatures based on threat classification parameters such as frequency, severity, and historical attack patterns. The central processing unit 104 assures that minor deviations do not trigger unnecessary countermeasures by prioritizing high-risk anomalies for further analysis. The central processing unit 104 dynamically adjusts weight factors based on evolving onboard network conditions, allowing real-time adaptability to emerging attack strategies. The central processing unit 104 cross-references detected signatures with stored anomaly datasets, refining anomaly classification based on prior occurrences. The central processing unit 104 minimizes false positives by evaluating multiple contributing factors before determining the manipulation. The central processing unit 104 enables an approach to anomaly classification, reducing computational overhead associated with processing large volumes of network activity data. The central processing unit 104 transmits weighted analysis results to a countermeasure implementation unit 106, facilitating an optimized response to identified security threats.
In an embodiment, the countermeasure implementation unit 106 executes a function isolation process, wherein at least one component affected by a manipulation is temporarily prevented from interacting with other components within an onboard network. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 restricts data flow between the manipulated component and unaffected network elements, preventing further spread of unauthorized modifications. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 applies access control policies to isolate the affected component without requiring a complete system shutdown. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 enhances onboard network resilience by maintaining partial operational continuity while isolating compromised elements. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 supports adaptive isolation mechanisms, adjusting the level of restriction based on the severity of the manipulation. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 continuously monitors the isolated component for further unauthorized activity. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 interacts with a central processing unit 104 to assess the viability of reintegrating the affected component into normal operation. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 logs isolation events, allowing for forensic analysis and security auditing.
In an embodiment, the countermeasure implementation unit 106 initiates a controlled power cycle of at least one component affected by a manipulation to disrupt unauthorized processes without requiring full deactivation. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 restores operational stability by terminating unauthorized code execution through a restart process. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 executes power cycling in a manner that prevents unintended data loss or system malfunctions. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 affirms that normal functionality is reinstated after unauthorized processes are cleared. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 implements controlled restart intervals, allowing critical components to resume operations with minimal disruption. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 verifies post-restart integrity, making sure that unauthorized modifications do not persist following the power cycle. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 interacts with a functional restoration unit 108 to determine whether additional remediation actions are required after the power cycle. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 maintains a log of all power cycle executions, allowing for security tracking and future threat analysis.
In an embodiment, the countermeasure implementation unit 106 limits an operational scope of at least one component affected by a manipulation by restricting communication to a predefined set of authorized nodes within an onboard network. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 prevents unauthorized entities from establishing unauthorized communication links with the affected component. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 enforces predefined security policies that define authorized communication nodes, preventing data exchanges outside approved network pathways. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 assures that the affected component operates within a restricted environment while undergoing security remediation. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 dynamically adjusts access restrictions based on real-time security assessments, allowing for adaptive control over onboard network interactions. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 continuously monitors network activity to detect unauthorized attempts to bypass communication restrictions. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 transmits restricted access logs to a central processing unit 104 for further security evaluation. The countermeasure implementation unit 106 maintains compliance with onboard network security policies by enforcing communication control mechanisms at both software and hardware levels.
In an embodiment, the functional restoration unit 108 verifies whether at least one component remains vulnerable to repeated anomalies before reinstating full functionality. The functional restoration unit 108 conducts a post-countermeasure assessment to determine whether the affected component has fully recovered from the manipulation or remains susceptible to further exploitation. The functional restoration unit 108 performs diagnostic evaluations, including integrity checks, real-time monitoring, and anomaly correlation analysis, to identify any residual vulnerabilities. The functional restoration unit 108 retrieves historical anomaly data and cross-references previous manipulation attempts to assess whether the affected component is prone to repeated security breaches. The functional restoration unit 108 implements a controlled observation period, wherein system performance is continuously monitored before full operational restoration. The functional restoration unit 108 interacts with a central processing unit 104 to analyze system-wide security conditions and determine whether additional countermeasures are necessary before reinstating full functionality. The functional restoration unit 108 maintains detailed logs of all verification processes, assessment criteria, and security evaluations to enable compliance with onboard network security protocols.
In an embodiment, the functional restoration unit 108 determines whether execution of a first countermeasure necessitates an immediate application update before restoring at least one component. The functional restoration unit 108 evaluates whether the first countermeasure applied to mitigate a manipulation has introduced operational constraints or security gaps that require immediate remediation. The functional restoration unit 108 retrieves system configuration parameters and assesses their compatibility with existing security requirements to determine whether an update is essential for stable operation. The functional restoration unit 108 analyzes anomaly recurrence trends, forensic reports, and security audit logs to identify whether a known vulnerability remains unpatched. The functional restoration unit 108 communicates with a central processing unit 104 to check for the availability of a validated application update from a remote system. The functional restoration unit 108 restricts full functionality restoration if a critical update is deemed necessary. The functional restoration unit 108 transmits a request to the remote system for an update and affirms secure retrieval before finalizing system recovery.
In an embodiment, the functional restoration unit 108 retrieves and applies a validated application update from a remote system, wherein the application update is verified against a secure database of trusted application versions before implementation. The functional restoration unit 108 establishes a secure communication link with the remote system to request and download the application update. The functional restoration unit 108 performs cryptographic validation of the received update to verify authenticity and integrity. The functional restoration unit 108 compares the update against a stored repository of approved software versions to prevent unauthorized modifications. The functional restoration unit 108 assesses dependency requirements and compatibility factors to enable integration of the update with existing system configurations. The functional restoration unit 108 initiates an installation process, wherein the update is applied incrementally to prevent unintended disruptions. The functional restoration unit 108 conducts post-installation validation through system diagnostics and performance analysis. The functional restoration unit 108 maintains an update history log containing version details, timestamps, and verification outcomes for future reference and security audits.
In an embodiment, the functional restoration unit 108 performs a diagnostic verification sequence to make sure that at least one component operates within predefined safety thresholds after execution of a first countermeasure. The functional restoration unit 108 initiates a validation process, wherein diagnostic tests are executed to confirm system stability following the application of security measures. The functional restoration unit 108 monitors system performance indicators, including processing latency, communication integrity, and component response times, to detect any anomalies post-countermeasure execution. The functional restoration unit 108 compares diagnostic results against stored operational benchmarks to identify deviations that may indicate residual instability. The functional restoration unit 108 retrieves predefined safety criteria from a secure database and applies them to the verification process. The functional restoration unit 108 transmits verification results to a central processing unit 104 for further evaluation. The functional restoration unit 108 may request additional validation from a remote system before authorizing full functionality restoration. The functional restoration unit 108 logs diagnostic verification results for security compliance tracking and forensic analysis.
In an embodiment, the functional restoration unit 108 executes a phased restoration process, wherein at least one component undergoes multiple levels of reactivation to enable gradual recovery of full functionality. The functional restoration unit 108 implements a reactivation sequence, wherein initial activation steps restore basic operational capabilities while maintaining security restrictions. The functional restoration unit 108 progressively enables additional functionalities, affirming that each activation stage is validated before proceeding to the next. The functional restoration unit 108 continuously monitors system behavior during each stage of restoration, preventing unforeseen disruptions. The functional restoration unit 108 verifies that onboard network parameters remain within safe operational thresholds throughout the recovery process. The functional restoration unit 108 interacts with a central processing unit 104 to dynamically adjust restoration parameters based on real-time system conditions. The functional restoration unit 108 logs each activation phase, including timestamps, validation outcomes, and security assessments, for future analysis and optimization of recovery strategies.
FIG. 3 illustrates a state diagram of the system 100 to mitigate manipulations in the onboard network of the vehicle, in accordance with the embodiments of the present disclosure. Initially, the system operates in a monitoring state, continuously analyzing network activity for irregularities. Upon detecting an anomaly, the system transitions to an anomaly detected state, where a detection unit 102 identifies a manipulation affecting at least one component. The system then enters a signature received state, where a central processing unit 104 collects the signature of anomaly for further analysis. After evaluating the anomaly in the manipulation analysis state, the system determines the manipulation type and transitions to the countermeasure executed state, where a countermeasure implementation unit 106 executes a first countermeasure to mitigate the detected manipulation. Said execution leads to the safe state, where the vehicle and affected components are transferred into a predetermined secure condition. The system then transitions to restoration initiated, where a functional restoration unit 108 begins the recovery process. In the partial function restored state, the functional restoration unit 108 makes sure the reactivation of at least a partial operational scope before returning to the monitoring phase.
FIG. 4 illustrates a sequential diagram of the system 100 to mitigate manipulations in the onboard network of the vehicle, in accordance with the embodiments of the present disclosure. The process begins with a detection unit 102, which identifies an anomaly within the onboard network and transmits an anomaly signature to a central processing unit 104. The central processing unit 104 analyzes the received anomaly signature and determines the nature of the manipulation affecting at least one component of the network. Based on the analysis, the central processing unit 104 instructs a countermeasure implementation unit 106 to execute a first countermeasure, leading to the transition of the vehicle and the affected component into a predetermined safe state. Further, the countermeasure implementation unit 106 engages a functional restoration unit 108, which initiates the recovery process. The functional restoration unit 108 progressively restores at least a partial functional scope of the vehicle and transmits a status report back to the central processing unit 104 for monitoring and further assessment.
In the description of the present invention, it is also to be noted that, unless otherwise explicitly specified or limited, the terms “disposed,” “mounted,” and “connected” are to be construed broadly, and may for example be fixedly connected, detachably connected, or integrally connected, either mechanically or electrically. They may be connected directly or indirectly through intervening media, or they may be interconnected between two elements. The specific meaning of the above terms in the present invention can be understood in specific cases to those skilled in the art.
Modifications to embodiments and combination of different embodiments of the present disclosure described in the foregoing are possible without departing from the scope of the present disclosure as defined by the accompanying claims. Expressions such as “comprising”, “comprising”, “incorporating”, “have”, “is” used to describe and claim the present disclosure are intended to be construed in a non- exclusive manner, namely allowing for items, components or elements not explicitly described also to be present. Reference to the singular is also to be construed to relate to the plural where appropriate.
Although embodiments have been described with reference to a number of illustrative embodiments thereof, it should be understood that numerous other modifications and embodiments can be devised by those skilled in the art that will fall within the spirit and scope of the principles of this disclosure. More particularly, various variations and modifications are possible in the component parts and/or arrangements of the subject combination arrangement within the scope of the present disclosure, the drawings and the appended claims. In addition to variations and modifications in the component parts and/or arrangements, alternative uses will also be apparent to those skilled in the art.
,CLAIMS:WE CLAIM:
1. A system 100 to mitigate the manipulations in an onboard network of a vehicle, the system 100 comprising:
a detection unit 102 to detect an anomaly prevailing in the onboard network, wherein the anomaly being associated with a manipulation of at least one component of the onboard network;
a central processing unit 104 to:
receive a signature of the detected anomaly; and
analyze the received signature to determine the manipulation;
a countermeasure implementation unit 106 to execute a first countermeasure based on the determined manipulation, wherein the first countermeasure enables transfer of the vehicle and at least one component of the onboard network into a predetermined safe state; and
a functional restoration unit 108 to execute a second countermeasure subsequent to the first countermeasure, wherein the second countermeasure enables restoration of at least a partial functional scope of the vehicle.
2. The system 100 of claim 1, wherein the central processing unit 104 is configured to communicate with a remote system to:
transmit anomaly identification data associated with the determined manipulation within the onboard network;
receive an application update configured to close a vulnerable point exploited by the detected manipulation; and
implement the application update in the at least one component to restore secure operation.
3. The system 100 of claim 1, wherein the central processing unit 104 applies a weighted anomaly detection model to evaluate multiple signatures of the detected anomaly before determining the manipulation.
4. The system 100 of claim 1, wherein the countermeasure implementation unit 106 executes a function isolation process, wherein the at least one component is temporarily prevented from interacting with other components within the onboard network.
5. The system 100 of claim 1, wherein the countermeasure implementation unit 106 initiates a controlled power cycle of the at least one component to disrupt the unauthorized processes without requiring full deactivation.
6. The system 100 of claim 1, wherein the countermeasure implementation unit 106 limits an operational scope of the at least one component by restricting communication to a predefined set of authorized nodes within the onboard network.
7. The system 100 of claim 1, wherein the countermeasure implementation unit 106 selects the first countermeasure based on an anomaly recurrence threshold, wherein the severity of the first countermeasure is escalated, if the same anomaly is detected within a predetermined timeframe.
8. The system 100 of claim 1, wherein the countermeasure implementation unit 106 executes a dynamic function reassignment, wherein a function of the at least one component is temporarily assigned to a redundant component within the onboard network to maintain operational stability.
9. The system 100 of claim 1, wherein the countermeasure implementation unit 106 generates a real-time countermeasure execution report, wherein the real-time countermeasure execution report is transmitted to the remote system for verification and auditing purposes.
10. A method 200 to mitigate the manipulations in an onboard network of a vehicle, the method 200 comprising:
detecting an anomaly prevailing in the onboard network, wherein the anomaly is associated with a manipulation affecting at least one component of the onboard network;
receiving, by a central processing unit 104, a signature corresponding to the detected anomaly;
analyzing, by the central processing unit 104, the received signature to determine the manipulation affecting at least one component of the onboard network;
executing, by a countermeasure implementation unit 106, a first countermeasure based on the determined manipulation, wherein the first countermeasure enables transferring of the vehicle and at least one component of the onboard network into a predetermined safe state;
executing, by a functional restoration unit 108, a second countermeasure subsequent to the first countermeasure, wherein the second countermeasure enables restoring of at least a partial functional scope of the vehicle.
11. The method 200 of claim 10, further comprising verifying, by the functional restoration unit 108, whether the at least one component remains vulnerable to the repeated anomalies before reinstating full functionality.
12. The method 200 of claim 10, further comprising determining, by the functional restoration unit 108, whether execution of the first countermeasure necessitates an immediate application update before restoring the at least one component.
13. The method 200 of claim 10, further comprising retrieving and applying, by the functional restoration unit 108, a validated application update from a remote system, wherein the application update is verified against a secure database of the trusted application versions before implementation.
14. The method 200 of claim 10, further comprising performing, by the functional restoration unit 108, a diagnostic verification sequence to ensure that the at least one component operates within the predefined safety thresholds after execution of the first countermeasure.
15. The method 200 of claim 10, further comprising executing, by the functional restoration unit 108, a phased restoration process, wherein the at least one component undergoes multiple levels of reactivation to enable gradual recovery of full functionality.