Cyberattack Resilience of Autonomous Vehicle Sensor Systems: Evaluating RGB vs. Dynamic Vision Sensors in CARLA
Source abstract
Abstract
Autonomous vehicles (AVs) rely on a heterogeneous sensor suite of RGB cameras, LiDAR, GPS/IMU, and emerging event-based dynamic vision sensors (DVS) to perceive and navigate complex environments. However, these sensors can be deceived by realistic cyberattacks, undermining safety. In this work, we systematically implement seven attack vectors in the CARLA simulator—salt and pepper noise, event flooding, depth map tampering, LiDAR phantom injection, GPS spoofing, denial of service, and steering bias control—and measure their impact on a state-of-the-art end-to-end driving agent. We then equip each sensor with tailored defenses (e.g., adaptive median filtering for RGB and spatial clustering for DVS) and integrate a unsupervised anomaly detector (EfficientAD from anomalib) trained exclusively on benign data. Our detector achieves clear separation between normal and attacked conditions (mean RGB anomaly scores of 0.00 vs. 0.38; DVS: 0.61 vs. 0.76), yielding over 95% detection accuracy with fewer than 5% false positives. Defense evaluations reveal that GPS spoofing is fully mitigated, whereas RGB- and depth-based attacks still induce 30–45% trajectory drift despite filtering. Notably, our research-focused evaluation of DVS sensors suggests potential intrinsic resilience advantages in high-dynamic-range scenarios, though their asynchronous output necessitates carefully tuned thresholds. These findings underscore the critical role of multi-modal anomaly detection and demonstrate that DVS sensors exhibit greater intrinsic resilience in high-dynamic-range scenarios, suggesting their potential to enhance AV cybersecurity when integrated with conventional sensors.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning · Smart Grid Security and Resilience · Autonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Faculty of Computer Science, Electronics and Telecommunications, AGH University of Krakow, 30-059 Krakow, Poland
Academic Computer Centre AGH, AGH University of Krakow, 30-950 Krakow, Poland
References (62)
Show source-provided references
1. Litman, T. (2020). Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions: Implications for Transport Planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
2. Preparing a Nation for Autonomous Vehicles: Opportunities, Barriers and Policy Recommendations10.1016/j.tra.2015.04.003 ↗
3. Sakhai, M., Sithu, K., Oke, M.K.S., Mazurek, S., and Wielgosz, M. (2025, January 2–5). Evaluating Synthetic vs. Real Dynamic Vision Sensor Data for SNN-Based Object Classification. Proceedings of the KU KDM 2025 Conference, Zakopane, Poland.
4. A Survey of Autonomous Driving: Common Practices and Emerging Technologies10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2983149 ↗
5. Computer Vision for Autonomous Vehicles: Problems, Datasets and State of the Art10.1561/0600000079 ↗
6. Rajamani, R. (2011). Vehicle Dynamics and Control, Springer. [2nd ed.].10.1007/978-1-4614-1433-9 ↗
7. Autonomous Vehicles: Sophisticated Attacks, Safety Issues, Challenges, Open Topics, Blockchain, and Future Directions10.3390/jcp3030025 ↗
8. Reconstruction-Based Adversarial Attack Detection in Vision-Based Autonomous Driving Systems10.3390/make5040080 ↗
9. Potential Cyberattacks on Automated Vehicles
10. Cyber Threats Facing Autonomous and Connected Vehicles: Future Challenges10.1109/TITS.2017.2665968 ↗
11. Checkoway, S., McCoy, D., Kantor, B., Anderson, D., Shacham, H., Savage, S., Koscher, K., Czeskis, A., Roesner, F., and Kohno, T. (2011, January 8–12). Comprehensive Experimental Analyses of Automotive Attack Surfaces. Proceedings of the 20th USENIX Security Symposium, San Francisco, CA, USA.
12. A Review on Safety Failures, Security Attacks, and Available Countermeasures for Autonomous Vehicles10.1016/j.adhoc.2018.12.006 ↗
13. Eykholt, K., Evtimov, I., Fernandes, E., Li, B., Rahmati, A., Xiao, C., Prakash, A., Kohno, T., and Song, D. (2018, January 18–23). Robust Physical-World Attacks on Deep Learning Visual Classification. Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.10.1109/CVPR.2018.00175 ↗
14. Goodfellow, I.J., Shlens, J., and Szegedy, C. (2014). Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examples. arXiv.
15. Yan, C., Xu, W., and Liu, J. (2016, January 13). Can You Trust Autonomous Vehicles: Contactless Attacks against Sensors of Self-Driving Vehicle. Proceedings of the 24th USENIX Security Symposium, Austin, TX, USA.
16. Koscher, K., Czeskis, A., Roesner, F., Patel, S., Kohno, T., Checkoway, S., McCoy, D., Kantor, B., Anderson, D., and Shacham, H. (2010, January 16–19). Experimental Security Analysis of a Modern Automobile. Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, Oakland, CA, USA.10.1109/SP.2010.34 ↗
17. Miller, C., and Valasek, C. (2015, January 1–6). Remote Exploitation of an Unaltered Passenger Vehicle. Proceedings of the Black Hat USA, Las Vegas, NV, USA.
18. A Practical Wireless Attack on the Connected Car and Security Protocol for In-Vehicle CAN
19. Szegedy, C., Zaremba, W., Sutskever, I., Bruna, J., Erhan, D., Goodfellow, I., and Fergus, R. (2013). Intriguing Properties of Neural Networks. arXiv.
20. Lin, P., Javanmardi, E., Nakazato, J., and Tsukada, M. (2023). Potential Field-based Path Planning with Interactive Speed Optimization for Autonomous Vehicles. arXiv.10.1109/IECON51785.2023.10311890 ↗
21. Kurakin, A., Goodfellow, I., and Bengio, S. (2016). Adversarial Examples in the Physical World. arXiv.
22. Cao, Y., Jia, J., Cong, G., Na, M., and Xu, W. (2019, January 11–15). Adversarial Sensor Attack on LiDAR-Based Perception in Autonomous Driving. Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, London, UK.10.1145/3319535.3339815 ↗
23. Sun, J., Cao, Y., Chen, Q., and Mao, Z.M. (2020, January 12–14). Towards Robust LiDAR-Based Perception in Autonomous Driving: General Black-Box Adversarial Sensor Attack and Countermeasures. Proceedings of the 29th USENIX Security Symposium, Virtual.
24. Humphreys, T.E., Ledvina, B.M., Psiaki, M.L., O’Hanlon, B.W., and Kintner, P.M. (2008, January 16–19). Assessing the Spoofing Threat: Development of a Portable GPS Civilian Spoofer. Proceedings of the 21st International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation, Savannah, GA, USA.
25. Tippenhauer, N.O., Pöpper, C., Rasmussen, K.B., and Capkun, S. (2011, January 17–21). On the Requirements for Successful GPS Spoofing Attacks. Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Chicago, IL, USA.10.1145/2046707.2046719 ↗
26. Studnia, I., Nicomette, V., Alata, E., Deswarte, Y., Kaâniche, M., and Laarouchi, Y. (2013, January 24–27). Survey on Security Threats and Protection Mechanisms in Embedded Automotive Networks. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual IEEE/IFIP Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks Workshop, Budapest, Hungary.10.1109/DSNW.2013.6615528 ↗
27. Nassi, B., Nassi, D., Ben-Netanel, R., Mirsky, Y., Drokin, O., and Elovici, Y. (2019, January 11–15). Phantom of the ADAS: Securing Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems from Split-Second Phantom Attacks. Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, London, UK.10.1145/3372297.3423359 ↗
28. Event-Based Vision: A Survey10.1109/TPAMI.2020.3008413 ↗
29. Wang, Y., Du, B., Shen, Y., Wu, K., Zhao, G., Sun, J., and Wen, H. (2019, January 15–20). EV-Gait: Event-Based Robust Gait Recognition Using Dynamic Vision Sensors. Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Long Beach, CA, USA.10.1109/CVPR.2019.00652 ↗
30. A 128×128 120 dB 15 μs Latency Asynchronous Temporal Contrast Vision Sensor10.1109/JSSC.2007.914337 ↗
31. Suh, Y., Choi, S., Kim, J., Kim, H., Lee, J., Kim, S., Lee, J., and Kim, J. (2020, January 10–21). A 1280 × 960 Dynamic Vision Sensor with a 4.95-μm Pixel Pitch and Motion Artifact Minimization. Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, Seville, Spain.10.1109/ISCAS45731.2020.9180436 ↗
32. Low-Latency Automotive Vision with Event Cameras10.1038/s41586-024-07409-w ↗
33. A 240 × 180 130 dB 3 μs Latency Global Shutter Spatiotemporal Vision Sensor10.1109/JSSC.2014.2342715 ↗
34. Rebecq, H., Ranftl, R., Koltun, V., and Scaramuzza, D. (2017, January 21–26). Events-to-Video: Bringing Modern Computer Vision to Event Cameras. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Honolulu, HI, USA.
35. The Event-Camera Dataset and Simulator: Event-Based Data for Pose Estimation, Visual Odometry, and SLAM10.1177/0278364917691115 ↗
36. Dosovitskiy, A., Ros, G., Codevilla, F., Lopez, A., and Koltun, V. (2017, January 13–15). CARLA: An Open Urban Driving Simulator. Proceedings of the 1st Annual Conference on Robot Learning, Mountain View, CA, USA.
37. Gonzalez, R.C., and Woods, R.E. (2008). Digital Image Processing, Prentice Hall. [3rd ed.].
38. Carlini, N., and Wagner, D. (2017, January 22–24). Towards Evaluating the Robustness of Neural Networks. Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, San Jose, CA, USA.10.1109/SP.2017.49 ↗
39. GPS Vulnerability to Spoofing Threats and a Review of Antispoofing Techniques
40. Tehrani, M.J., Kim, J., and Tonella, P. (2025). PCLA: A Framework for Testing Autonomous Agents in the CARLA Simulator. arXiv.
41. Codevilla, F., Müller, M., López, A., Koltun, V., and Dosovitskiy, A. (2018, January 21–25). End-to-End Driving via Conditional Imitation Learning. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.10.1109/ICRA.2018.8460487 ↗
42. Zhu, A.Z., Yuan, L., Chaney, K., and Daniilidis, K. (2018, January 18–23). Unsupervised Event-Based Learning of Optical Flow, Depth, and Egomotion. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.10.1109/CVPR.2019.00108 ↗
43. Boloor, A., He, X., Gill, C., Vorobeychik, Y., and Zhang, X. (2019, January 2–3). Simple Physical Adversarial Examples against End-to-End Autonomous Driving Models. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Embedded Software and Systems, Shanghai, China.10.1109/ICESS.2019.8782514 ↗
44. Akcay, S., Ameln, D., Vaidya, A., Lakshmanan, B., Ahuja, N., and Genc, U. (2022, January 16–19). Anomalib: A Deep Learning Library for Anomaly Detection. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, Bordeaux, France.10.1109/ICIP46576.2022.9897283 ↗
45. Roth, K., Pemula, L., Zepeda, J., Schölkopf, B., Brox, T., and Gehler, P. (2022, January 18–24). Towards Total Recall in Industrial Anomaly Detection. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, New Orleans, LA, USA.10.1109/CVPR52688.2022.01392 ↗
46. Bogdoll, D., Hendl, J., and Zöllner, J.M. (2022, January 19–20). Anomaly Detection in Autonomous Driving: A Survey. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, New Orleans, LA, USA.10.1109/CVPRW56347.2022.00495 ↗
47. Zhu, Y., Miao, C., Xue, H., Yu, Y., Su, L., and Qiao, C. (2024, January 18–22). Malicious Attacks against Multi-Sensor Fusion in Autonomous Driving. Proceedings of the 30th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, Washington, DC, USA.10.1145/3636534.3649372 ↗
48. Cao, Y., Wang, N., Xiao, C., Yang, D., Fang, J., Yang, R., Chen, Q.A., Liu, M., and Li, B. (2021, January 24–27). Invisible for Both Camera and LiDAR: Security of Multi-Sensor Fusion Based Perception in Autonomous Driving Under Physical-World Attacks. Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1109/SP40001.2021.00076 ↗
49. Arai, K. (2022). Towards End-to-End Chase in Urban Autonomous Driving Using Reinforcement Learning. Intelligent Systems and Applications, IntelliSys 2022, Springer.
50. Arai, K. (2023). Towards End-to-End Escape in Urban Autonomous Driving Using Reinforcement Learning. Intelligent Systems and Applications. IntelliSys 2023, Springer.
51. Autonomous Vehicles Security: Challenges and Solutions Using Blockchain and Artificial Intelligence10.1109/TITS.2023.3236274 ↗
52. AI-Based Intrusion Detection Systems for In-Vehicle Networks: A Survey10.1145/3570954 ↗
53. Sakhai, M., Mazurek, S., Caputa, J., Argasiński, J.K., and Wielgosz, M. (2024). Spiking Neural Networks for Real-Time Pedestrian Street-Crossing Detection Using Dynamic Vision Sensors in Simulated Adverse Weather Conditions. Electronics, 13.10.3390/electronics13214280 ↗
54. Pratt, W.K. (2007). Digital Image Processing: PIKS Scientific Inside, John Wiley & Sons. [4th ed.].10.1002/0470097434 ↗
55. Brown, T.B., Mané, D., Roy, A., Abadi, M., and Gilmer, J. (2017). Adversarial Patch. arXiv.
56. Thys, S., Van Ranst, W., and Goedemé, T. (2019, January 16–17). Fooling Automated Surveillance Cameras: Adversarial Patches to Attack Person Detection. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, Long Beach, CA, USA.10.1109/CVPRW.2019.00012 ↗
57. Shin, H., Kim, D., Kwon, Y., and Kim, Y. (2017, January 25–28). Illusion and Dazzle: Adversarial Optical Channel Exploits against Lidars for Automotive Applications. Proceedings of the International Conference on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems, Taipei, Taiwan.10.1007/978-3-319-66787-4_22 ↗
58. Unmanned Aircraft Capture and Control via GPS Spoofing10.1002/rob.21513 ↗
59. GNSS Spoofing and Detection10.1109/JPROC.2016.2526658 ↗
60. Cybersecurity for autonomous vehicles: Review of attacks and defense10.1016/j.cose.2020.102150 ↗
61. Intelligent Systems in Motion: A Comprehensive Review on Multi-Sensor Fusion and Information Processing From Sensing to Navigation in Path Planning10.4018/IJSWIS.333056 ↗
62. Yeong, D.J., Velasco-Hernandez, G., Barry, J., and Walsh, J. (2021). Sensor and Sensor Fusion Technology in Autonomous Vehicles: A Review. Sensors, 21.10.20944/preprints202102.0459.v1 ↗