An Overview

Today, embedded electronics are central to keeping vehicles safe on the road. As vehicles become more sophisticated, ensuring that their systems work reliably and are protected from cybersecurity risks becomes a bigger challenge. It is not enough for manufacturers to merely meet the legal requirements; they also need to follow well-established standards and best practices when rolling out new features and technologies.

To tackle these challenges, the industry needs a thorough, lifecycle-focused strategy that draws on international standards. This blog looks at six key frameworks: ISO 26262 (Functional Safety), ISO 21434 (Automotive Cybersecurity), AUTOSAR, ASPICE, MISRA C, and Model-based Development (MBD). These are then connected with the eleven core safety dimensions set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to help assess the safety of automotive electronic control systems. Together, this approach aims to drive the development of safer automotive systems.

Figure 1:

Let us look at these dimensions and understand in detail how the different standards are defined and evaluated:

1. Types of Standards

• ISO 26262 (Functional Safety) and ISO 21434 (Automotive Cybersecurity) – These two standards cover all phases, from concept to decommissioning, emphasizing the importance of systematic and auditable engineering practices in the development of Automotive Electronic Control Systems.
• MISRA C – MISRA C provides detailed guidelines for using C in the development of safety-critical Automotive Electronic Control Sustems. It not only reduces the risk of errors but also ensures reliable and manageable code.
• AUTOSAR – With a multi-layered approach, this standard serves as a blueprint for building scalable and maintainable automotive software.
• ASPICE – It is a process assessment framework used to evaluate how well the software and system engineering are conducted.
• Model-Based Development (MBD) – It is not a formal standard, but it is widely used in creating models and simulations for design and test components. This makes it easier to verify complex systems before they are put into practice.

2. Definition of Safety and Hazards

• ISO 26262 – It defines the functional safety of systems, considering the absence of unreasonable risks due to system failures. It emphasizes the mitigation of hazards arising from any unintended behavior of the system or a function.
• ISO 21434 – It expands the scope of the hazard criteria by including vulnerabilities that arise from cyberattacks with direct implications on safety functions.

3. Identification of Safety Requirements

• ISO 26262 requires a systematic definition of safety goals, which are then translated into detailed functional and technical requirements based on a risk and hazard analysis.
• ISO 21434 prescribes conducting a thorough threat analysis and risk assessment (TARA) to establish clear cybersecurity objectives and corresponding requirements.
• MISRA C: Provides a set of language-specific guidelines designed to prevent unsafe coding practices and enhance software reliability.
• AUTOSAR/MBD: Facilitates the architectural mapping and traceability of safety and security requirements throughout the entire system development process.

4. Hazard and Safety Analysis Methods

• ISO 26262 utilizes Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment (HARA), Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA), Fault Tree Analysis (FTA), and scenario-based approaches to systematically identify and prioritize potential risks.
• ISO 21434 employs the Threat Analysis and Risk Assessment (TARA) process to identify critical system assets, attack vectors and assess the potential impact of cybersecurity threats.
• Model-based Development supports the simulation and validation of failure scenarios, to support mitigating potential issues at the early design stages.

5. Management of Safety Requirements

• ISO 26262 and ISO 21434: Mandate comprehensive traceability throughout the development lifecycle – from initial definition through design, implementation, verification, to system decommissioning.
• ASPICE: Brings out the importance of strong requirements management practices, including configuration management and change control, to maintain the integrity and quality of the development process.
• AUTOSAR: Provides support for allocating requirements at the module level and maintaining traceability across software components.

6. Risk Assessment Approach

• ISO 26262: Implements the Automotive Safety Integrity Level (ASIL) classification system from ASIL A to D, where ASIL D denotes the highest safety-critical level to assess and prioritize the hazards identified.
• ISO 21434: Utilizes risk matrices to evaluate the feasibility and potential impact of cybersecurity threats, enabling the prioritization of countermeasures.
• MISRA C and AUTOSAR: Focus on minimizing risks through the enforcement of rigorous design principles and coding best practices, rather than relying on explicit risk quantification.

7. Design for Safety Approach

• ISO 26262: Emphasizes the use of redundancy, fail-safe designs, and well-defined safety architectures. It also promotes systematic reviews from initial requirements to final testing.
• AUTOSAR and MISRA C: Provide architectural guidelines and coding standards that support clear separation of concerns, error detection, and fault isolation to enhance system safety.
• Model-Based Development (MBD): Facilitates early validation of safety concepts through simulation and it also supports automated code generation for safety-critical components.

8. Software Safety

• MISRA C: Helps prevent common coding errors and undefined behaviors by enforcing strict language-specific guidelines.
• ISO 26262: Strengthens software safety by requiring adherence to the recognized coding standards, comprehensive verification and validation (V&V), and thorough structural coverage analysis.
• AUTOSAR: Supports application-level isolation, enabling runtime error detection, and compliance with safety requirements through modular and fault-tolerant software design.

9. System Lifecycle Consideration

• ISO 26262 and ASPICE: Promote a full lifecycle view covering concept, development, production, operation, service, and decommissioning to ensure ongoing safety and quality.
• ISO 21434: Adds post-production monitoring, vulnerability management, and incident response for sustained cybersecurity.
• Model-Based Development (MBD): Supports traceability, impact assessment, and iterative validation throughout the system’s lifecycle.

10. Human Factors Consideration

• ISO 26262: Recognizes user/operator interactions and mandates analysis where human error may introduce unacceptable safety risks.
• ISO 21434: Addresses cybersecurity risks arising from human factors such as social engineering, weak authentication, and system misuse.

11. Approach to Review, Audit, and Certification

• ISO 26262/21434: Require documented safety and security cases, independent reviews, and regular formal audits to ensure compliance throughout development.
• ASPICE: Focuses on rigorous process assessments, including supplier qualification and continuous improvement cycles.
• MISRA C/AUTOSAR: Ensure compliance primarily through meticulous code reviews, static analysis, and regression testing tools.

Integrative Table: Standards Coverage Across Safety Dimensions

Overcoming Integration Challenges

The integration of safety and cybersecurity requirements in Automotive Electronic Control Systems comes with its own set of changes, including new vulnerabilities, and security measures that may influence either the system’s behavior or its reliability. To achieve this, a balanced approach requires strong coordination between different teams, shared tools, and regulated change management for alignment with security and safety goals.

Case Study

A leading automaker had to issue a major recall after cases of unintended vehicle acceleration emerged. The investigation found that the problem emerged from flawed software logic within the Automotive Electronic Control Systems, which lacked adherence to MISRA C guidelines, gaps in maintaining thorough traceability of requirements, and missing cybersecurity measures that could have detected and averted unauthorized command inputs. This incident clearly demonstrated the need for a unified, standards-driven approach: following MISRA C and ISO 26262 would have helped avoid software faults, ASPICE would have ensured stronger process discipline, and ISO 21434 would have tackled cybersecurity threats, altogether greatly reducing both the risk and impact of potential failures.

Emerging Trends and Future Outlook

Trends like vehicle electrification, autonomous driving, and OTA updates bring new safety and cybersecurity challenges. Automotive Safety Standards must evolve to address applications such as remote software upgrades, AI/ML-based controls, and threat management. This demands an in-depth gap analysis, continuous process improvement, and periodic training to upskill resources. Stakeholders must continue investing in people, processes, and tools to keep pace with the rapidly evolving technology landscape and regulations, embedding safety and security as the core values for the future of mobility.

The eInfochips Advantage

With a dedicated Automotive CoE, and a team of certified safety experts, eInfochips provides turnkey consulting-to-certification services and support. eInfochips possesses in-depth experience working on executing projects involving Automotive Safety Standards safety requirements definition, analysis, standards-compliant hardware and software development, security audits, and post-deployment support to help our customers develop safety-critical solutions and reduce risk.