Skip to main content

Hackers can fool self-driving car sensors into evasive action

The laser ranging (LIDAR) systems that most self-driving cars rely on to sense obstacles can be hacked by a setup costing just US$60, a security researcher has told IEEE spectrum. According to Jonathan Petit, principal scientist at software security company Security Innovation, he can take echoes of a fake car, pedestrian or wall and put them in any location. Using such a system, which he designed using a low-power laser and pulse generator, attackers could trick a self-driving car into thinking somethin
September 8, 2015 Read time: 2 mins
The laser ranging (LIDAR) systems that most self-driving cars rely on to sense obstacles can be hacked by a setup costing just US$60, a security researcher has told 6781 IEEE spectrum.

According to Jonathan Petit, principal scientist at software security company Security Innovation, he can take echoes of a fake car, pedestrian or wall and put them in any location. Using such a system, which he designed using a low-power laser and pulse generator, attackers could trick a self-driving car into thinking something is directly ahead of it, forcing it to slow down.

In a paper written while he was a research fellow in the University of Cork’s Computer Security Group and due to be presented at the Black Hat Europe security conference in November, Petit describes the system he built with off the shelf components that can create the illusion of an obstacle anywhere from 20 to 350 metres from the LIDAR unit and make multiple copies of the simulated obstacles, and even make them move.

While the short-range radars used by many self-driving cars for navigation operate in a frequency band requiring licencing, LIDAR systems use easily-mimicked pulses of laser light to build up a 3-D picture of the car’s surroundings and were ripe for attack.

“I can spoof thousands of objects and basically carry out a denial of service attack on the tracking system so it’s not able to track real objects,” Petit told IEEE spectrum. I don’t think any of the LIDAR manufacturers have thought about this or tried this.”

For more information on companies in this article

Related Content

  • FPT enters agreement to develop self-driving EVs in Vietnam
    April 24, 2019
    Vietnamese information technology company FPT Software has partnered with Yamaha Motor and urban developer Ecopark to self-driving electric vehicles (EVs). The partners say they are seeking to accelerate the adoption of autonomous vehicle (AV) technologies and bring smart public transport to Vietnam. Hoang Nam Tien, FPT’s chairman, says: “We hope this collaboration would bring us to the day where autonomous cars using our technologies could travel across urban areas, luxury resorts, factories and warehous
  • Advanced Driver Assistance Systems: a solution or another problem?
    November 27, 2013
    Do Advanced Driver Assistance Systems represent a positive step forward for safety, or something of a safety risk? Jason Barnes discusses the issue with leading industry figures. Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) are already common. Anti-lock brakes or electronic stability control are well understood and are either fitted as standard or frequently requested by new vehicle buyers. More advanced ADAS features are appearing on many top-end vehicles and the trickle-down has already started. Adaptive
  • Avoiding the call of the wild
    June 29, 2018
    Hitting an animal on a rural road can be fatal for all parties involved – but detecting and avoiding them requires clever technology. Andrew Williams carefully scans the horizon for details. Wildlife-vehicle collisions are an ever-present threat in rural areas around the world, and there is certainly nothing funny about suddenly finding an angry moose in your headlights on a sharp bend. A variety of detection and avoidance systems are currently in use or under development to help prevent your vehicle being
  • A global standard for enforcement systems – is it necessary?
    May 30, 2013
    Jason Barnes speaks to leading figures from the automated enforcement sector about whether a truly international standard for automated enforcement systems is necessary or can ever be achieved. Recent reports of further press controversy in the US over automated enforcement (see ‘Focusing on accuracy?’, ITS International raise again the issue of standards and what constitutes ‘good enough’ in terms of system accuracy and overall solution effectiveness. Comparatively, automated enforcement has always expe