SOLUTIONS · ATTACK PATH REVIEW
Attack path review for automotive cybersecurity engineering
Construct multi-hop attack paths across ECUs and interfaces, review attack feasibility as an engineering team, and connect attack paths to risk-treatment decisions.
WHO THIS PAGE IS FOR
This page is for automotive cybersecurity engineers and threat-modeling leads who construct and review attack paths as part of TARA and the cybersecurity engineering lifecycle.
THE PROBLEM
Attack paths connect threat scenarios to attack feasibility and risk treatment. A modern vehicle's attack surface spans ECUs, buses, external interfaces, and cross-component data flows — so realistic attack paths are multi-hop. This is an engineering analysis and review workflow, not offensive penetration testing. The challenge is constructing complete, reviewable attack logic and keeping it grounded in the real architecture.
WHERE THE MANUAL WORKFLOW STRUGGLES
Why spreadsheets stop scaling
Multi-hop attack paths grow combinatorially — manual enumeration misses cases
Attack feasibility ratings drift without a shared structure
Attack paths drift away from the architecture as the design changes
Reviewing attack logic in documents and spreadsheets is slow and error-prone
Reusable attack patterns are hard to share across programmes
HOW AGNILE AND KAVACH HELP
An engineering workflow designed to support this
KAVACH's attack-tree editor structures attack logic with OR/AND nodes grounded in architecture context
Attack paths are extracted from attack trees with feasibility factors surfaced for engineer review
Reusable attack-path patterns can be shared across ECU families and programmes
Attack paths link forward to risk treatment and back to the threat scenarios they address
Engineer-in-the-loop review at every stage; AI-assisted acceleration can be configured or disabled
REQUIRED INPUTS
- Architecture context for the system under review
- Interface exposure and network topology
- Relevant threat landscape
EXPECTED OUTPUTS
- Attack trees with structured OR/AND logic
- Attack paths with engineer-reviewed feasibility reasoning
- Linkage from attack paths to risk-treatment decisions
Actual programme outputs depend on scope, architecture, and the engineering review process.
RELATED PAGES
Where to go next
FAQ
Attack Path Review FAQ
See the Attack Path Review workflow on your own architecture.
Bring a representative ECU, feature, or system architecture. We'll walk through how the workflow is structured — with honest answers on fit and integration effort.