Service Provider Technical Interchange

Pallavi Hegde; Mohana M Gurram; Mohamad S Refai

NASA NTRS · 20240014404

Service Provider Technical Interchange

Pallavi Hegde·Mohana M Gurram·Mohamad S Refai

Abstract

ATM-X subproject, DIP (Digital Information Platform) is hosting a Service Provider(SP) workshop to discuss Service Quality, Data Governance, Cybersecurity, and Interoperability. This workshop will provide an interactive forum for exchanging ideas with peers and experts. Service Providers have a chance to influence future developments and ensure that your services align with DIP’s vision of the future aviation ecosystem.

Explore related subjects

Cybersecurity Data Governance Service Quality Workshop Technical Interchange(TIM)Interoperability

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Pallavi Hegde, Mohana M Gurram, Mohamad S Refai. Service Provider Technical Interchange. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20240014404

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related reports

DOE OSTI2026

Evaluation of Hardware and Software Bill of Materials (HBOMs/SBOMs) Extraction Methods

Hardware and software bills of materials (HBOMs and SBOMs) provide important visibility into the components, dependencies, and supply chain relationships within programmable digital devices. This visibility is critical for advanced nuclear reactor applications, where use of common or shared hardware components, software libraries, suppliers, or manufacturing processes may create common cause failure (CCF) vulnerabilities despite apparent diversity. This paper evaluates current approaches for obtaining and analyzing HBOMs and SBOMs in support of CCF, diversity and defense-in-depth (D3) assessments, and begins to explore potential methods for artificial intelligence/machine learning-based analysis. The availability of BOM information from advanced reactor manufacturers and vendors, representative hardware and software categories found in advanced reactor systems continues to limit research [13]. This paper compares commonly used BOM formats, including CycloneDX, SPDX, and SWID. It also surveys publicly available tools for generating BOMs from source code, compiled binaries, and hardware-related information, noting limitations in language coverage, system age, and format interoperability. Finally, this paper evaluates methods for correlating BOM data with vulnerability and exploitability information, including VEX, CVE, and CWE resources. The findings indicate that publicly available nuclear-vendor BOMs are limited, making third-party extraction and research into novel analysis techniques necessary.

Cybersecurity↗

DOE OSTI2025

Deny-by-Default Network Port Security: SPaRC Technical Bulletin #002

Operational Technology (OT) networks [e.g., industrial control systems (ICS) and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems] have unique cyber security challenges due to their decades long service life, high availability requirements, and limited visibility. OT networks often take credit for being “air gapped” (i.e. disconnected from the Internet) and all devices within the OT network can “talk” to each other—even if they should not. This SPaRC Technical Bulletin describes how the unique limitations of OT networks can become strengths when it comes to cybersecurity.

Cybersecurity↗

DOE OSTI2025

Impact of Cyber Threat Awareness on Driver Response to an Unexpected Vehicle Cyberattack

Here, the integration of advanced cyber-physical systems in heavy vehicles introduces new vulnerabilities by expanding the possibility of cyberattacks. The objective of this study is to evaluate (1) how threat awareness influences driver response to an unexpected cyberattack, (2) how the provision of a basic cyberattack response protocol influences driver performance, and (3) how professionally trained versus standard drivers compare in their responses to a cyberattack. An on-road driving study (N = 50) was conducted using a medium heavy-duty vehicle. Participants were divided into three groups: Control, which remained unaware of any potential cyberattack; Aware, which was informed about the potential cyberattack; and Aware + Protocol, which received the same warning as the Aware group with the addition of a basic cyberattack response protocol. An instrument cluster cyberattack was executed at the same location for all participants. The findings highlight the essential role of awareness and response protocol in enhancing driver response to an unexpected vehicle cyberattack. The Aware + Protocol group had the highest stop rate (100%) and the shortest stopping distances (224 m for standard drivers and 254 m for professionals), compared to the Control group (828 and 520 m, respectively). Aware + Protocol also had the fastest reaction time, averaging 7.53 s, versus 16.12 s (Aware) and 30.29 s (Control). These results emphasize that awareness alone is insufficient. Providing drivers with clear, actionable protocols significantly improves their ability to react quickly and safely to cyberattacks, enhancing overall road safety.

Cybersecurity↗