From vehicle architecture to cybersecurity evidence.
KAVACH helps teams design vehicle architecture, build a cybersecurity digital twin, analyze the threat landscape, move from architecture to structured TARA in hours, simulate attack paths, make risk treatment decisions, track ISO/SAE 21434 and UNECE R155 evidence, and extend cybersecurity engineering into post-production vulnerability monitoring.
Conceptual Platform Visualization
- 01Architecturevehicle model
- 02Digital Twincybersecurity context
- 03Threat Landscapeknowledge & STRIDE
- 04TARAassets → risk
- 05Attack Pathsfeasibility
- 06Risk Treatmentdecisions
- 07Evidencework products
- 08Monitoringpost-production
- Architecture to first TARA draft
- Cybersecurity digital twin
- Attack path simulation
- Risk treatment and controls
- ISO/SAE 21434 and UNECE R155 evidence
- Post-production vulnerability monitoring
WHAT IS KAVACH?
KAVACH is an automotive cybersecurity engineering workspace designed to support ISO/SAE 21434 lifecycle workflows across Clauses 5–15 and the 42 Work Products the standard defines. The current release focuses on architecture-aware TARA, attack path simulation, risk treatment, the Cybersecurity Case (Clause 6), UNECE R155 / R156 evidence, AIS 189 / AIS 190 readiness, and post-production vulnerability monitoring (Clause 8).
KAVACH offers three operating modes — manual engineering, deterministic automation, and optional private AI — and is built for OEMs and Tier-1 suppliers. Engineers remain responsible for review, correction, approval, and final evidence at every stage.
THE PROBLEM
Cybersecurity engineering breaks when architecture, risk, and evidence are disconnected.
Modern vehicles are software-defined, connected, updateable, and exposed across the lifecycle. But cybersecurity work is still split across architecture diagrams, spreadsheets, CVE lists, attack trees, compliance matrices, and reports.
TARA cycles measured in weeks
Threat enumeration, asset mapping, and risk scoring are still done by hand for most programmes. The work is rigorous; the workflow doesn’t scale across platforms.
Lifecycle evidence, manual traceability
ISO/SAE 21434 work-product evidence spans governance, concept, development, validation, production, operations, and TARA. When evidence lives across Word, Excel, and disconnected tools, traceability gaps often surface late during customer, assessor, or regulatory review.
Generic threat modeling tools were not built for vehicles
IT-grade tools don’t model ECU architectures, CAN/CAN-FD buses, automotive STRIDE, or ISO/SAE 21434 Clause 15 specifics. The gap shows up in threat scenarios you have to write yourself.
DIGITAL TWIN
Start with the vehicle architecture. Keep every cybersecurity decision connected.
ECUs, interfaces, trust boundaries, data flows, diagnostics, update paths, and software components form the cybersecurity digital twin. Threats and controls reason against the system — not isolated rows.
- Vehicle Architecture
- Cybersecurity Digital Twin
- Threat Landscape
- TARA
- Attack Paths
- Risk Treatment
- Evidence
- Monitoring
Vehicle Architecture Context
Capture ECUs, networks, interfaces, data flows, trust boundaries, diagnostics, update paths, and software components.
Cybersecurity Digital Twin
Use architecture context to reason about assets, damage scenarios, threat scenarios, attack paths, controls, vulnerabilities, and evidence.
Living Engineering Evidence
Keep TARA, risk treatment, controls, cybersecurity case evidence, compliance mapping, and vulnerability updates connected through the lifecycle.
WORKFLOW PREVIEW
See how architecture, TARA, attack paths, and evidence stay connected.
Walk through the KAVACH workflow from item definition to evidence prepared for review.
Illustrative interface mockup. No customer data shown.
THE WORKSPACE
One workspace for the complete cybersecurity engineering thread.
Architecture, TARA, attack paths, risk treatment, vulnerability monitoring, controls, and evidence — built on one connected data model.
Project Dashboard
Track cybersecurity progress, open work products, review status, and evidence readiness across a programme.
Architecture Context
Capture ECUs, interfaces, data flows, trust boundaries, and system context used for cybersecurity reasoning.
TARA Workbench
Build connected chains from assets to damage scenarios, threats, risk treatment, security goals, and controls.
Attack Tree Editor
Model attack logic with structured paths, feasibility reasoning, reusable patterns, and reviewable path evidence.
Traceability Hub
Keep assets, threats, risks, controls, claims, and evidence linked across the cybersecurity engineering lifecycle.
Vulnerability Monitoring
Connect SBOM and vulnerability signals to affected components, assets, threats, and risk treatment decisions.
Cybersecurity Case
Assemble claims, arguments, work products, and evidence into a reviewable cybersecurity case structure.
R155 Compliance Matrix
Map engineering evidence to regulatory expectations and track gaps before programme review.
Report Generator
Produce structured draft reports from the same data model used across TARA, traceability, and evidence.
TARA WORKBENCH
Move from architecture to structured TARA without losing traceability.
Evidence is built as engineering decisions are made — not assembled at the end. Every decision traces from architecture context through risk treatment to evidence.
- Asset
- Damage Scenario
- Threat Scenario
- Attack Tree
- Attack Path
- Risk Assessment
- Risk Treatment
- Security Goal
- Control
- Evidence
ARCHITECTURE → TARA CHAIN
01 · model
Architecture Context
02 · identified
Asset
03 · impact
Damage Scenario
04 · STRIDE
Threat Scenario
05 · feasibility
Attack Path
06 · decided
Risk Treatment
07 · derived
Security Goal
08 · mapped
Control
09 · linked
Evidence
Conceptual visualization. No customer data shown.
What the workbench gives you
- Chain view across assets, damages, threats, risks, treatment, and controls
- Inline review and editing
- Search, filters, and progress visibility
- Coverage counters for missing links and incomplete chains
- Traceability from threat reasoning to report output
- Work product drafting for engineering review
EXAMPLE CHAIN
- 01Gateway ECU
- 02Loss of diagnostic integrity
- 03Unauthorized diagnostic command abuse
- 04Attack path
- 05Secure diagnostics control
- 06Evidence note
Generic engineering example. No real customer architecture.
ATTACK PATHS
Simulate attack paths before they become evidence gaps.
Structure attack trees, extract paths, and review feasibility step by step. Threats traced back to architecture; controls traced forward to verification.
- OR/AND attack tree structures
- Reusable attack path patterns
- Feasibility factors for review
- Path extraction from attack trees
- Linkage from threat scenario to risk treatment
- Reviewable logic for engineering discussion
ATTACK TREE — STEP-BY-STEP REASONING
Conceptual visualization. No exploit content.
CVE → TARA
When a new CVE appears, the cybersecurity case should not go stale.
A CVE list is not a cybersecurity argument. SBOM and vulnerability signals connect to affected components, architecture context, threats, treatment decisions, and evidence updates. This treats vulnerability monitoring as part of the cybersecurity engineering lifecycle, not as an isolated CVE list.
CVE → TARA → EVIDENCE
- CVE Signalalert
- Affected Componentmatched
- ECU Contextlocated
- Asset / Threatlinked
- Risk Treatment Reviewqueued
- Evidence Updatetracked
- Monitoringloop
Conceptual visualization. No customer data shown.
Component Awareness
Link software components and suppliers to vehicle functions, ECUs, and cybersecurity assets.
Risk Context
Prioritize vulnerabilities using exposure, architecture context, exploitability signals, and asset relevance.
TARA Feedback
Revisit affected threats, attack paths, controls, and residual risk when new vulnerabilities appear.
Evidence Refresh
Keep vulnerability decisions traceable for review, audit, and post-development cybersecurity monitoring.
LIFECYCLE COVERAGE
ISO/SAE 21434 evidence across the full vehicle lifecycle.
More than Clause 15 TARA. KAVACH helps teams connect architecture-aware TARA, attack paths, risk treatment, cybersecurity case evidence, ISO/SAE 21434 work products, UNECE R155/R156 evidence, and India-focused AIS 189 / AIS 190 readiness.
Organizational Cybersecurity
Structure organizational cybersecurity evidence and governance inputs.
Plan, Case, and Assessment
Support planning, argumentation, assessment evidence, and cybersecurity case preparation.
Distributed Activities
Support supplier interface responsibilities, cybersecurity interface agreements, and evidence handover.
Continual Activities
Connect vulnerability monitoring, post-development signals, and cybersecurity updates.
Concept Phase
Support item definition, cybersecurity goals, and concept-level reasoning.
Product Development
Connect requirements, controls, implementation evidence, and verification needs.
Cybersecurity Validation
Support validation evidence and argument completeness.
Production
Support production control evidence for cybersecurity-relevant processes.
Operations, Updates, End of Support
Support operational monitoring, update reasoning, and lifecycle closure.
TARA and Risk Treatment
Support architecture-aware threat analysis, risk assessment, and treatment decisions.
Work-product labels are traceability anchors. Final evidence remains subject to engineering review and customer approval.
DEPLOYMENT MODES
Use AI when allowed. Keep engineering moving when it is not.
AI is an accelerator, not a dependency. KAVACH runs as a manual workspace, a deterministic automation platform, or an AI-assisted workspace depending on the customer’s deployment boundary, AI policy, and review process. In every mode, engineers remain responsible for review, correction, approval, and final evidence.
Manual Engineering Mode
Use KAVACH without AI generation. Engineers can manually create, edit, review, approve, link, and export cybersecurity work products while keeping traceability across the TARA and lifecycle evidence chain.
Deterministic Automation Mode
Use built-in automation for rule-based suggestions, traceability links, work-product derivation, validation checks, report generation, vulnerability-to-TARA mapping, and audit-readiness gap detection without relying on AI generation.
Optional Private AI
Where permitted, use private AI assistance to accelerate structured draft generation, reasoning support, control suggestions, attack path drafting, and evidence preparation while keeping engineers in control of review and approval.
THREE MODES — ONE EVIDENCE CHAIN
01
Manual Engineering
02
Deterministic Automation
03
Optional Private AI
Traceability → Review → Evidence → Reports
AUTOMATION BEYOND AI
Even without AI, KAVACH still removes engineering effort.
Deterministic automation and structured workflow intelligence reduce repetitive engineering work even when AI is disabled.
- Rule-based suggestions for impact ratings, security goals, controls, R155 mapping, and cybersecurity case arguments
- Traceability rule engine across assets, threats, risk treatment, goals, controls, verification, and evidence
- Real-time work-product validation with errors, warnings, suggestions, and ISO clause references
- Completeness scoring and audit-readiness checks
- Vulnerability-to-TARA mapping from CVEs/components to affected assets, threat scenarios, risk treatment, and evidence updates
- ISO/SAE 21434 work-product and report generation from structured project data
Show all automation capabilitiesHide additional capabilities
- Supports derivation of cybersecurity specification drafts from concept requirements, security goals, and controls
- Supports generation of integration test case drafts from cybersecurity specifications
- Helps derive validation criteria from security goals
- Gap detection for orphan assets, missing links, incomplete controls, and evidence gaps
- RACI / RASIC templates for roles and work-product ownership
- Incident response playbook templates for automotive cybersecurity scenarios
- Production cybersecurity checklist templates such as key provisioning, secure boot, firmware signing, and HSM-related checks
QUALITY GATES
Find evidence gaps before the review does.
Surface missing links, incomplete reasoning, and review gaps before work products leave the engineering team.
- Orphan assets
- Missing cybersecurity properties
- Missing damage scenarios
- Missing impact ratings
- Unlinked damage scenarios
- Threats without STRIDE / feasibility / risk
- Untreated threats
- Reduce decision without controls or goals
- Treatment without justification
- Retain / share decision without security claim
- Goals without controls
- Controls without linked goals
- R155 mapping gaps
- Cybersecurity case gaps
- Traceability breaks
ILLUSTRATIVE REVIEW PANEL
- Coverage status
- In progress
- Open review items
- Several
- Evidence links
- Connected
- Review status
- Active
Illustrative panel. Not a real metric claim.
EVIDENCE OUTPUTS
Generate review-ready work products from one connected data model.
Structured drafts produced from connected engineering data — not retyped at review time.
TARA Report
Structured output covering assets, damage scenarios, threats, feasibility, risk, and treatment.
Cybersecurity Case
Claims, arguments, evidence links, review status, and open gaps.
R155 Compliance Matrix
Mapping of regulatory expectations to engineering evidence and work-product coverage.
Traceability Matrix
Links from architecture and assets through threats, controls, verification, and evidence.
Validation Report
Validation planning and evidence references connected to cybersecurity goals and risks.
Cybersecurity Plan
Programme-level cybersecurity planning inputs and work-product tracking.
Interface Agreement
Supplier and distributed-activity evidence for cybersecurity responsibilities.
Vulnerability Work Products
Component exposure, vulnerability triage, decision records, and update evidence.
Audit Readiness Summary
Gap overview, traceability status, review notes, and open actions.
Generated work products are structured drafts for engineering review and customer approval.
DEPLOYMENT
Built for sensitive vehicle architecture data.
Architecture, TARA, attack paths, controls, and evidence stay inside the customer-defined boundary.
Desktop Workspace
Engineering workspace for local project work, review, and evidence preparation.
On-Prem AI Inference
AI assistance can run inside the customer environment for sensitive programmes.
Customer-Dedicated VPC
Dedicated cloud boundary for teams that require controlled infrastructure without shared public inference.
Traceable Data Flow
Architecture, TARA, attack paths, controls, and evidence remain connected within the project model.
KAVACH does not have to depend on shared public AI services. Programmes can use manual workflows, deterministic automation, on-prem AI inference, or customer-dedicated cloud inference.
EFFORT GAP
See the effort gap between spreadsheet TARA and architecture-aware engineering.
TIME TO FIRST STRUCTURED TARA DRAFT
Architecture to first structured TARA draft in hours.
KAVACH accelerates the first structured draft of asset identification, damage scenarios, threat scenarios, attack paths, risk treatment, and evidence links. Final review, correction, approval, and release remain with the engineering team.
A moderate-complexity ECU can require around 250 manual engineering hours. KAVACH helps reduce the first-pass generation, structuring, linking, and report preparation effort while preserving engineer review. Estimate the effort gap with the TARA calculator →
| Dimension | Manual Spreadsheets | Generic Tools | KAVACH |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture awareness | Manual interpretation | Limited or form-based | Native architecture context across ECUs, interfaces, data flows, and trust boundaries |
| Attack path reasoning | Written manually | Often generic | Attack trees, extracted paths, and feasibility reasoning linked to threats |
| Vulnerability-to-TARA update | Separate CVE tracking | Partial integration | CVE and component signals linked to assets, threats, treatment, and evidence |
| ISO/SAE 21434 lifecycle evidence | Manually assembled | TARA-heavy coverage | Connected work-product structure across lifecycle activities |
| R155 mapping | Manual mapping | Checklist style | Evidence-linked compliance matrix |
| Cybersecurity case | Separate document | Limited | Claims, arguments, evidence, and gaps connected to engineering data |
| Traceability | Fragile links | Partial | Asset-to-evidence chain maintained through the workflow |
| Deployment model | Local files | Usually SaaS | Desktop, on-prem, or customer-dedicated VPC |
| Engineer review | Manual review | Tool-assisted | Engineer-in-the-loop AI with editable, reviewable outputs |
| AI dependency | No AI; no structured automation | Either manual or unmanaged SaaS-assisted | Manual, deterministic automation, or optional private AI-assisted workflows |
| Automation without AI | Manual formulas and document effort | Limited templates or checklists | Rule-based suggestions, traceability automation, validation checks, work-product derivation, and report generation |
GUIDED TOURS
Bring a real architecture. Walk through the cybersecurity thread.
Use a representative ECU, feature, or system to see how KAVACH moves from architecture context to reviewable cybersecurity evidence.
Build the Cybersecurity Digital Twin
Capture ECUs, interfaces, trust boundaries, data flows, diagnostics, update paths, and software components.
Request Demo →Run Architecture-Aware TARA
Move from architecture to assets, damage scenarios, threats, attack paths, and risk treatment without losing traceability.
Request Demo →Simulate and Review Attack Paths
Structure attack trees, extract paths, and review feasibility before treatment decisions.
Request Demo →Map Risk Treatment to Controls
Link risk decisions to security goals, requirements, controls, and verification evidence.
Request Demo →Trace a CVE into TARA
Connect a vulnerability to affected components, threat scenarios, treatment decisions, and evidence updates.
Request Demo →Build a Cybersecurity Case
Assemble claims, arguments, gaps, and evidence into a reviewable case structure.
Request Demo →Export Review-Ready Evidence
Generate work-product drafts from the same connected data model.
Request Demo →
See KAVACH on your architecture.
Bring a representative ECU, vehicle feature, or system architecture. We'll walk through how KAVACH moves from architecture context to reviewable cybersecurity evidence. For OEMs, Tier-1 suppliers, cybersecurity teams, system engineers, and programme owners building evidence for ISO/SAE 21434 and UNECE R155.