Stealthy Attacks against Robotic Vehicles Protected by Control-based Intrusion Detection Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robotic vehicles (RV) are increasing in adoption in many industrial sectors. RVs use auto-pilot software for perception and navigation and rely on sensors and actuators for operating autonomously in the physical world. Control algorithms have been used in RVs to minimize the effects of noisy sensors, prevent faulty actuator output, and, recently, to detect attacks against RVs. In this article, we demonstrate the vulnerabilities in control-based intrusion detection techniques and propose three kinds of stealthy attacks that evade detection and disrupt RV missions. We also propose automated algorithms for performing the attacks without requiring the attacker to expend significant effort or to know specific details of the RV, thus making the attacks applicable to a wide range of RVs. We demonstrate the attacks on eight RV systems including three real vehicles in the presence of an Intrusion Detection System using control-based techniques to monitor RV’s runtime behavior and detect attacks. We find that the control-based techniques are incapable of detecting our stealthy attacks and that the attacks can have significant adverse impact on the RV’s mission (e.g., deviate it significantly from its target, or cause it to crash).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".