How do drivers respond to vehicle cyberattacks? A driving simulator study

Abstract

Modern vehicles are embedded with numerous electronic components, making them more advanced and automated, while also making them vulnerable to cyberattacks. This study investigated how drivers respond to unexpected, cyber-attack-induced situations through a driving simulator study. It also examined differences in driver responses if they were trained or received warning messages on how to mitigate the effect of a vehicle cyberattack. The findings suggest that drivers' responses to cyberattacks vary based on the severity of the event. Those who receive training are much more likely to drive cautiously when the vehicle behaves unexpectedly and those who receive warning messages are likely to view them, but not necessarily take action. These results have far reaching implications into the utility of training programs in improving driver behavior and leave future work in terms of optimizing warning message systems.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baldwin

C. L.

Lewis

B. A.

(2014). Perceived urgency mapping across modalities within a driving context. Applied Ergonomics, 45(5), 12701277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.05.002

Classen

Winter

S. M.

Velozo

C. A.

Bedard

Lanford

D. N.

Brumback

Lutz

B. J.

(2010). Item Development and Validity Testing for a Self- and Proxy Report: The Safe Driving Behavior Measure. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64(2), 296305. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.64.2.296

Cranor

L. F.

(2008). A Framework for Reasoning About the Human in the Loop. 15.

Eiza

M. H.

(2017). Driving with sharks: Rethinking connected vehicles with vehicle cybersecurity. IEEE Vehicular Technology Magazine, 12(2), 45-51.

Garcia

F. D.

Oswald

Kasper

Pavlides

. (2016). Lock It and Still Lose It — On the (In)Security of Automotive Remote Keyless Entry Systems. 17.

Hodge

Hauck

Gupta

Bennett

J. C.

(2019). Vehicle Cybersecurity Threats and Mitigation Approaches (No. NREL/TP-5400-74247). Golden, CO (United States): National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL). https://doi.org/10.2172/1559930

Koscher

Czeskis

Roesner

Patel

Kohno

Checkoway

… Savage

(2010). Experimental Security Analysis of a Modern Automobile. 2010 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 447-462. Oakland, CA, USA: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SP.2010.34

Larson

U. E.

Nilsson

D. K.

(2008). Securing vehicles against cyber attacks. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Workshop on Cyber Security and Information Intelligence Research Developing Strategies to Meet the Cyber Security and Information Intelligence Challenges Ahead -CSIIRW 08, 1. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/1413140.1413174

McCarthy

Harnett

Carter

(2014). Characterization of potential security threats in modern automobiles: A composite modeling approach (No. DOT HS 812 074). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (United States).

10.

Petit

Shladover

S. E.

(2014). Potential Cyberattacks on Automated Vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 111. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2014.2342271

11.

Wogalter

Mayhorn

(2005). Providing cognitive support with technology-based warning systems. Ergonomics, 48(5), 522-533. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130400029258

12.

Wolf

Weimerskirch

Wollinger

(2007). State of the Art: Embedding Security in Vehicles. EURASIP Journal on Embedded Systems, 2007, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1155/2007/74706

13.

Zhang

Petit

Roberts

S. C.

(2019). A Simulator Study on Drivers' Response and Perception Towards Vehicle Cyberattacks. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 63(1), 1498-1502. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181319631310