Who Controls Your Robot? An Evaluation of ROS Security Mechanisms

Niklas Goerke, David Timmermann, I. Baumgart
{"title":"Who Controls Your Robot? An Evaluation of ROS Security Mechanisms","authors":"Niklas Goerke, David Timmermann, I. Baumgart","doi":"10.1109/ICARA51699.2021.9376468","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Robot Operation System (ROS) is widely used in academia as well as the industry to build custom robot applications. Successful cyberattacks on robots can result in a loss of control for the legitimate operator and thus have a severe impact on safety if the robot is moving uncontrollably. A high level of security thus needs to be mandatory. Neither ROS 1 nor 2 in their default configuration provide protection against network based attackers. Multiple protection mechanisms have been proposed that can be used to overcome this. Unfortunately, it is unclear how effective and usable each of them are. We provide a structured analysis of the requirements these protection mechanisms need to fulfill by identifying realistic, network based attacker models and using those to derive relevant security requirements and other evaluation criteria. Based on these criteria, we analyze the protection mechanisms available and compare them to each other. We find that none of the existing protection mechanisms fulfill all of the security requirements. For both ROS 1 and 2, we discuss which protection mechanism are most relevant and give hints on how to decide on one. We hope that the requirements we identify simplify the development or enhancement of protection mechanisms that cover all aspects of ROS and that our comparison helps robot operators to choose an adequate protection mechanism for their use case.","PeriodicalId":183788,"journal":{"name":"2021 7th International Conference on Automation, Robotics and Applications (ICARA)","volume":"1894 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2021 7th International Conference on Automation, Robotics and Applications (ICARA)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICARA51699.2021.9376468","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

The Robot Operation System (ROS) is widely used in academia as well as the industry to build custom robot applications. Successful cyberattacks on robots can result in a loss of control for the legitimate operator and thus have a severe impact on safety if the robot is moving uncontrollably. A high level of security thus needs to be mandatory. Neither ROS 1 nor 2 in their default configuration provide protection against network based attackers. Multiple protection mechanisms have been proposed that can be used to overcome this. Unfortunately, it is unclear how effective and usable each of them are. We provide a structured analysis of the requirements these protection mechanisms need to fulfill by identifying realistic, network based attacker models and using those to derive relevant security requirements and other evaluation criteria. Based on these criteria, we analyze the protection mechanisms available and compare them to each other. We find that none of the existing protection mechanisms fulfill all of the security requirements. For both ROS 1 and 2, we discuss which protection mechanism are most relevant and give hints on how to decide on one. We hope that the requirements we identify simplify the development or enhancement of protection mechanisms that cover all aspects of ROS and that our comparison helps robot operators to choose an adequate protection mechanism for their use case.
谁控制你的机器人?活性氧安全机制的评价
机器人操作系统(ROS)广泛应用于学术界和工业界,以构建定制机器人应用。对机器人的成功网络攻击可能导致合法操作员失去控制,从而在机器人无法控制的情况下对安全产生严重影响。因此,高水平的安全必须是强制性的。默认配置中的ROS 1和ROS 2都不提供针对基于网络的攻击者的保护。已经提出了多种保护机制,可以用来克服这一点。不幸的是,目前还不清楚每种方法的有效性和可用性。我们通过识别现实的、基于网络的攻击者模型,并使用这些模型推导出相关的安全需求和其他评估标准,对这些保护机制需要满足的需求进行结构化分析。基于这些标准,我们分析了可用的保护机制,并对它们进行了比较。我们发现没有一个现有的保护机制能够满足所有的安全需求。对于活性氧1和活性氧2,我们讨论了哪种保护机制是最相关的,并给出了如何决定的提示。我们希望我们确定的要求简化了覆盖ROS各个方面的保护机制的开发或增强,并且我们的比较有助于机器人操作员为他们的用例选择适当的保护机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信