skip to main content
10.1145/3196494.3196556acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesasia-ccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Electromagnetic Induction Attacks Against Embedded Systems

Published:29 May 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Embedded and cyber-physical systems are critically dependent on the integrity of input and output signals for proper operation. Input signals acquired from sensors are assumed to correspond to the phenomenon the system is monitoring and responding to. Similarly, when such systems issue an actuation signal it is expected that the mechanism being controlled will respond in a predictable manner. Recent work has shown that sensors can be manipulated through the use of intentional electromagnetic interference (IEMI). In this work, we demonstrate thatboth input and output signals, analog and digital, can be remotely manipulated via the physical layer---thus bypassing traditional integrity mechanisms. Through the use of specially crafted IEMI it is shown that the physical layer signaling used for sensor input to, and digital communications between, embedded systems may be undermined to an attacker's advantage. Three attack scenarios are analyzed and their efficacy demonstrated. In the first scenario the analog sensing channel is manipulated to produce arbitrary sensor readings, while in the second it is shown that an attacker may induce bit flips in serial communications. Finally, a commonly used actuation signal is shown to be vulnerable to IEMI. The attacks are effective over appreciable distances and at low power.

References

  1. 2009. Electromagnetic Compatibility Engineering. 1--843 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. C.K. Alexander and M.N.O Sadiku. 2001. Fundamentals of Electric Circuits. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Analog Devices. 2016. Accelerometers Product Selection Table. (2016). Datasheet.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. U. Azad and Y. E. Wang. 2012. Analysis and experimental results for an inductively coupled near-field power transmission system. In 2012 IEEE International Workshop on Antenna Technology (iWAT). 157--160.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Mats G Backstrom and Karl Gunnar Lovstrand. 2004. Susceptibility of electronic systems to high-power microwaves: Summary of test experience. IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility 46, 3 (2004), 396--403.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Jeremie Bourqui, Michal Okoniewski, and Elise C Fear. 2010. Balanced antipodal Vivaldi antenna with dielectric director for near-field microwave imaging. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation 58, 7 (2010), 2318--2326.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. A Boyer, S Bendhia, and E Sicard. 2007. Modelling of a direct power injection aggression on a 16 bit microcontroller input buffer. EMC Compo 7 (2007), 35--39.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. B. L Cannon, J. F Hoburg, D. D Stancil, and S. C Goldstein. 2009. Magnetic resonant coupling as a potential means for wireless power transfer to multiple small receivers. IEEE Trans. on Power Electronics 24, 7 (2009), 1819--1825.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Ruchir Chauhan. 2014. A platform for false data injection in frequency modulated continuous wave radar. Ph.D. Dissertation. Utah State University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. J-H Chun and Boris Murmann. 2006. Analysis and measurement of signal distortion due to ESD protection circuits. IEEE journal of solid-state circuits 41, 10 (2006), 2354--2358.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. J Delsing, J Ekman, J Johansson, S Sundberg, M Backstrom, and T Nilsson. 2006. Susceptibility of sensor networks to intentional electromagnetic interference. In 17th International Zurich Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility. IEEE, 172--175.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Mark Harris. 2015. Researcher hacks self-driving car sensors. IEEE Spectrum (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Yu-ichi Hayashi, Naofumi Homma, Takaaki Mizuki, Takafumi Aoki, and Hideaki Sone. 2013. Transient IEMI threats for cryptographic devices. IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility 55, 1 (2013), 140--148.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Stephen Hopwood. 2010. EMI Filter Hints and Tips. (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. J. Huijsing, M. Steyaert, and A.H.M. van Roermund. 2013. Analog Circuit Design: Sensor and Actuator Interface Electronics, Integrated High-Voltage Electronics and Power Management, Low-Power and High-Resolution ADC's. Springer US. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Ryan Hurley. 2005. Design Considerations for ESD/EMI Filters: I. Technical Report. ON Semiconductor.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Ali Khaleghi and Ilangko Balasingham. 2009. Improving in-body ultra wideband communication using near-field coupling of the implanted antenna. Microwave and Optical Technology Letters 51, 3 (2009), 585--589.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Kyechong Kim and Agis A Iliadis. 2010. Operational upsets and critical new bit errors in CMOS digital inverters due to high power pulsed electromagnetic interference. Solid-State Electronics 54, 1 (2010), 18--21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Denis Foo Kune, John Backes, Shane S Clark, Daniel Kramer, Matthew Reynolds, Kevin Fu, Yongdae Kim, and Wenyuan Xu. 2013. Ghost talk: Mitigating EMI signal injection attacks against analog sensors. In Security and Privacy (SP), 2013 IEEE Symposium on. IEEE, 145--159. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. David Kushner. 2013. The Real Story of Stuxnet. IEEE Spectrum (Feb. 26 2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Jonas Larsson. 2007. Electromagnetics from a quasistatic perspective. American Jourrnal of Physics (Mar. 2007).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Shridhar Atmaram More. 2013. ADC Input Protection. Technical Report. Texas Instruments.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. D.A. Neamen. 2012. Semiconductor Physics and Devices. McGraw-Hill. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. H.W. Ott. 1988. Noise reduction techniques in electronic systems. Wiley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Nicolas MORA PARRA. 2016. Contribution to the study of the vulnerability of critical systems to Intentional Electromagnetic Interference (IEMI). Ph.D. Dissertation. École Polytechnique FéDéRale De Lausanne.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. C.R. Paul. 2006. Introduction to Electromagnetic Compatibility. Wiley. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. William A Radasky, Carl E Baum, and Manuem W Wik. 2004. Introduction to the special issue on high-power electromagnetics (HPEM) and intentional electromagnetic interference (IEMI). IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility 46, 3 (2004), 314--321.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. J.M. Redouté and M. Steyaert. 2009. EMC of Analog Integrated Circuits. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Alan Rich. 1983. Shielding and Guarding. Analog Dialogue 17, 1 (1983).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. S. G. Beebe S. Cao, J. H. Chun and R. W. Dutton. 2010. ESD Design Strategies for High-Speed Digital and RF Circuits in Deeply Scaled Silicon Technologies. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers 57, 9 (2010), 2301--2311. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Richard B Schulz. 1968. ELF and VLF shielding effectiveness of high-permeability materials. IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility 1 (1968), 95--100.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. OSRAM Opto Semiconductors. 2015. Silicon PIN Photodiode with Daylight Blocking Filter SFH 235 FA. (2015), 9 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Daniel H Sheingold. 1986. Analog-digital conversion handbook. Vol. 16. PrenticeHall Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Yasser Shoukry, Paul Martin, Paulo Tabuada, and Mani Srivastava. 2013. Noninvasive spoofing attacks for anti-lock braking systems. In International Workshop on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems. Springer, 55--72. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Yasser Shoukry, Paul Martin, Yair Yona, Suhas Diggavi, and Mani Srivastava. 2015. PyCRA: Physical challenge-response authentication for active sensors under spoofing attacks. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, 1004--1015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Y. So, W. Kim, J. Kim, Y. J. Yoon, and J. Park. 2016. Double-slot antipodal vivaldi antenna for improved directivity and radiation patterns. In 2016 International Symposium on Antennas and Propagation (ISAP). 382--383.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Stormwise. 2018. Ultra Low Frequency Antennas for 150 Hz to 1.5 KHz. http://www.stormwise.com/index.html. (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Junko Takahashi, Yu-ichi Hayashi, Naofumi Homma, Hitoshi Fuji, and Takafumi Aoki. 2012. Feasibility of fault analysis based on intentional electromagnetic interference. In Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC), 2012 IEEE International Symposium on. IEEE, 782--787.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Aaron D Taylor. 2011. Microcontroller (8051-core) instruction susceptibility to intentional electromagnetic interference (IEMI). Master's thesis. University of New Mexico.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Texas Instruments. 2014. TM4C123GH6PM Microcontroller. (2014). Datasheet.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Yamarita Villavicencio, Francesco Musolino, and Franco Fiori. 2009. Electrical model of a microcontroller for EMC analysis. In Proc. Int. workshop of EMC for ICs (EMCCOMPO 09). 38.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. David Voltmer. 2007. Fundamentals of Electromagnetics. Vol. 2. 1--217 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. D.R. White. 1986. A Handbook on Electromagnetic Shielding Materials and Performance. Interference Control Technologies.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Chen Yan, X Wenyuan, and Jianhao Liu. 2016. Can you trust autonomous vehicles: Contactless attacks against sensors of self-driving vehicle. DEF CON (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Qin Yu, Thomas W. Holmes, and Krishna Naishadham. 2002. RF equivalent circuit modeling of ferrite-core inductors and characterization of core materials. IEEE Transactions on Electromagnetic Compatibility 44, 1 (2002), 258--262.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Electromagnetic Induction Attacks Against Embedded Systems

              Recommendations

              Comments

              Login options

              Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

              Sign in
              • Published in

                cover image ACM Conferences
                ASIACCS '18: Proceedings of the 2018 on Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security
                May 2018
                866 pages
                ISBN:9781450355766
                DOI:10.1145/3196494

                Copyright © 2018 ACM

                Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

                Publisher

                Association for Computing Machinery

                New York, NY, United States

                Publication History

                • Published: 29 May 2018

                Permissions

                Request permissions about this article.

                Request Permissions

                Check for updates

                Qualifiers

                • research-article

                Acceptance Rates

                ASIACCS '18 Paper Acceptance Rate52of310submissions,17%Overall Acceptance Rate418of2,322submissions,18%

              PDF Format

              View or Download as a PDF file.

              PDF

              eReader

              View online with eReader.

              eReader