MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387331371 · doi:10.1109/tnsm.2023.3318406

EV Charging Infrastructure Discovery to Contextualize Its Deployment Security

2023· article· en· W4387331371 on OpenAlexafffund
Khaled Sarieddine, Mohammad Ali Sayed, Chadi Assi, Ribal Atallah, Sadegh Torabi, Joseph Khoury, Morteza Safaei Pour, Elias Bou‐Harb

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Reliability and Analysis Research
Canadian institutionsHydro-QuébecConcordia University
FundersConcordia University
KeywordsSoftware deploymentComputer scienceComputer securityComputer networkTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (EVCSs) have been shown to be susceptible to remote exploitation due to manufacturer-induced vulnerabilities, demonstrated by recent attacks on this ecosystem. What is more alarming is that compromising these high-wattage IoT systems can be leveraged to perform coordinated oscillatory load attacks against the power grid which could lead to the instability of this critical infrastructure. In this paper, we investigate a previously sidelined aspect of EVCS security. We analyze the deployment security of EVCSs and highlight operator-induced vulnerabilities rendering the ecosystem exposed to remote intrusions. We create an advanced discovery technique that leverages Web interface artifacts to dynamically discover new charging station vendors. As a result, we uncover 33,320 charging station management systems in the wild. Consequently, we study the deployment security of the charging stations and identify that 28,046 EVCSs were found to be vulnerable to eavesdropping, and around 24% of the studied EVCSs are deployed with default configurations exposing the ecosystem to a Mirai-like attack vector. Aligned with this finding, we discover that the EVCS ecosystem has been targeted by nefarious IoT malware such as Mirai and its variants. This demonstrates that further security measures should be implemented by vendors and operators to ensure the security of this vital ecosystem. Consequently, we provide a comprehensive recommendation for securing the deployment of EVCSs.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Network and Service ManagementSame topicSoftware Reliability and Analysis ResearchFrench-language works237,207