Evaluation Framework for Electric Vehicle Security Risk Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electric Vehicles (EVs) seem promising for future transportation to solve environmental concerns and energy management problems. According to Reuters, global car makers plan to invest over half a billion in more efficient and intelligent EVs and batteries. However, there are several challenges in EV mass production, including cybersecurity. Due to the cyber-physical nature of EVs and charging stations, their security and trustworthiness are ongoing challenges. In this study, we identify gaps in the security profiling of EVs and categorize them into five components: 1) charging station security, 2) information privacy, 3) software security, 4) connected vehicle security, and 5) autonomous driving security. Our study provides a comprehensive analysis of identified vulnerabilities, threats, challenges and attacks for different EV security aspects, along with their possible surface/subsurface and countermeasures. We develop a comprehensive security risk assessment framework by first using EV security profiles and mapping identified vulnerabilities to a well-known threat model, STRIDE. Then, we classify the risk levels associated with each vulnerability by setting ground criteria for the impact and likelihood of the threats. Finally, we validate our risk assessment framework by applying the same criteria to eight real-world EV attack scenarios. As a result, researchers can adapt the proposed risk assessment framework to discover threats and assess their risks in EVs and charging station ecosystems.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".