Understanding the Autonomous Electric Vehicle Cyber Threat Landscape: A Focus on Infrastructure, Threats and Ontology‐Based Modelling

ABSTRACT The development of autonomous electric vehicles (AEVs) represents the convergence of two simultaneous automotive revolutions: electric vehicles (EVs) and autonomous vehicles (AVs). AVs require sensors, decision‐making systems and actuation systems to achieve autonomous driving, whereas EVs require intelligent management and real‐time communication with the electricity grid and charging facilities. AEVs integrate these domains into a connected, intelligent and energy‐conscious cyber‐physical system. For example, advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), installed in AEVs, allow the vehicle to operate without human interaction. However, this interconnectedness of AEVs through ADAS and other highly connected systems significantly increases the attack surface. Threats to AEVs include artificial intelligence manipulation and sensor impersonation, whereas vulnerabilities in network communications, charging protocols and remote access can further expand their threat surface. Complex cyber‐physical threat vectors arise from the interaction of the AEV components across external (5G, Wi‐Fi) and internal (Control Area Network [CAN], Ethernet) communication networks. Additional entry points arise through the exchange of data and power between charging stations and the network infrastructure. These threats can impact vehicle charging, energy consumption, damage vehicle engines and can even adversely affect the entire grid system. However, current research is often siloed either focussing on charging systems or on vehicles independently lacking unified models that capture common threat paths, attack surfaces and security interconnections particularly for advanced driver assistance systems. AEVs communicate to other vehicles, infrastructure, grid, network through Vehicle‐to‐Vehicle (V2V), Vehicle‐to‐Infrastructure (V2I), Vehicle‐to‐Grid (V2G), Vehicle‐to‐Network (V2N) channels of communication, all of which are grouped into the larger Vehicle‐to‐Everything (V2X) communication. Every connection is thus a potential entry point for cyber attacks. In this paper, we present an early threat landscape model represented as a formal ontology of AEV components, threats, vulnerabilities and mitigations, which are mapped to threat frameworks to provide a detailed view. The semantic representation of the AEV threat landscape provides a machine‐interpretable knowledge model that enables automated reasoning and rich querying to identify hidden risks and trace attack propagation paths unlike static models or flat frameworks. The modular and extensible nature of the ontology is most suited to the ever‐evolving and rapidly changing nature of AEVs and their threats.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Energy internet.
Published
2026-03-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1049/ein2.70022
Primary Topic
Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs)
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Understanding the Autonomous Electric Vehicle Cyber Threat Landscape: A Focus on Infrastructure, Threats and Ontology‐Based Modelling

Tejal Shah, Devki Nandan Jha, Trinadh Pamulapati, Ohud Alsadi et al.
Energy internet.
Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs)
article

Understanding the Autonomous Electric Vehicle Cyber Threat Landscape: A Focus on Infrastructure, Threats and Ontology‐Based Modelling

Tejal Shah, Devki Nandan Jha, Trinadh Pamulapati, Ohud Alsadi, Rajiv Ranjan, Abdulrahman Almijlad
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT The development of autonomous electric vehicles (AEVs) represents the convergence of two simultaneous automotive revolutions: electric vehicles (EVs) and autonomous vehicles (AVs). AVs require sensors, decision‐making systems and actuation systems to achieve autonomous driving, whereas EVs require intelligent management and real‐time communication with the electricity grid and charging facilities. AEVs integrate these domains into a connected, intelligent and energy‐conscious cyber‐physical system. For example, advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), installed in AEVs, allow the vehicle to operate without human interaction. However, this interconnectedness of AEVs through ADAS and other highly connected systems significantly increases the attack surface. Threats to AEVs include artificial intelligence manipulation and sensor impersonation, whereas vulnerabilities in network communications, charging protocols and remote access can further expand their threat surface. Complex cyber‐physical threat vectors arise from the interaction of the AEV components across external (5G, Wi‐Fi) and internal (Control Area Network [CAN], Ethernet) communication networks. Additional entry points arise through the exchange of data and power between charging stations and the network infrastructure. These threats can impact vehicle charging, energy consumption, damage vehicle engines and can even adversely affect the entire grid system. However, current research is often siloed either focussing on charging systems or on vehicles independently lacking unified models that capture common threat paths, attack surfaces and security interconnections particularly for advanced driver assistance systems. AEVs communicate to other vehicles, infrastructure, grid, network through Vehicle‐to‐Vehicle (V2V), Vehicle‐to‐Infrastructure (V2I), Vehicle‐to‐Grid (V2G), Vehicle‐to‐Network (V2N) channels of communication, all of which are grouped into the larger Vehicle‐to‐Everything (V2X) communication. Every connection is thus a potential entry point for cyber attacks. In this paper, we present an early threat landscape model represented as a formal ontology of AEV components, threats, vulnerabilities and mitigations, which are mapped to threat frameworks to provide a detailed view. The semantic representation of the AEV threat landscape provides a machine‐interpretable knowledge model that enables automated reasoning and rich querying to identify hidden risks and trace attack propagation paths unlike static models or flat frameworks. The modular and extensible nature of the ontology is most suited to the ever‐evolving and rapidly changing nature of AEVs and their threats.

Energy internet.
Newcastle University (GB)
Industry, innovation and infrastructure
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs)
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.