MACS Service Reports - 2016 - NOV6

Global Standards Organizations Are at
Loggerheads Re: Advanced Interfaces

Specifically, SVI methodology requires the gateway module
to be installed internally onboard vehicles, which would use security protocols to govern access either via the underdash port,
onboard telematics systems (e.g. OnStar) or other wireless communications. ExVe methodology differs by requiring gateway
security measures for initial access to be located outside of the
vehicle within the automaker's cloud server.

Two new vehicle communication interface concepts have taken the lead in being considered as replacements by the ISO and
the SAE standards groups. One is the Vehicle Interface Methodology concept by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE),
more commonly known as Secure Vehicle Interface (SVI). The
other is the Extended Vehicle concept (ExVe), proposed by the
ISO. In short:
* The Secure Vehicle Interface model has been described
in detail in previous articles and presentations published by
Motor Magazine, the Equipment and Tool Institute, as well
as other media and organizations. At this time, the SAE supports the SVI, while it has a neutral position on ExVe. Officially, the SAE is neither for nor against ExVe, but it is not
developing any associated standards for ExVe either.
* The Extended Vehicle model is under the jurisdiction of an
ISO technical committee (ISO TC/22 SC31 WG6), which is
managing two projects developing standards - 20077 (ExVe
Methodology) and 20078 (ExVe Web Services). The ISO does
not support the SVI; it isn't even neutral. ExVe is backed by
Audi/VW, BMW, Fiat, Opel, PSA Peugeot Citroën, Fiat, Renault-Nissan and other ISO members. Of note, the ISO has
scheduled ExVe for adoption near the end of 2017, with publication and implementation slated for early 2018.

ExVe Could Shape the Future of Tools, Equipment and
Vehicle Service
In essence, ExVe redefines the vehicle as we known it - a vehicle with four wheels, a few doors and an engine - into a virtual entity. The concept combines that vehicle with extensions
that include a manufacturer-owned ExVe cloud server and its
proprietary communications between the vehicle and server.
With this new vehicle definition, the automakers would have
the option to perform all enhanced diagnostics for electronic
systems via their ExVe cloud server exclusively. If exercised, the
current underdash connector would only have access to legislated OBD-II emissions-testing data, but not diagnostics or repair.
And likely, that would change in time.
The ExVe standards and methodology allows all electronic
communications for identifying problems with vehicle components (e.g. in-vehicle network diagnostics) to be controlled
by the automakers - not the vehicle owner. In particular, ExVe
methodology has the potential to render the current all-makes
aftermarket scan and other diagnostic tools obsolete, in addition
to impacting other aftermarket products and services.

SVI vs. ExVe: Similarities and Differences Worth Noting
Both new interface alternatives are secure, allow for multiple
users simultaneously, and can integrate emerging telematics,
connected and automated driving technologies. But they differ
significantly in how and what level access to vehicle data, software and information is determined, controlled and monitored.
In the SVI alternative, control of access is shared jointly by the
aftermarket and automakers. In contrast, in the ExVe alternative,
as currently written, only automakers have control of access to
vehicle data, software and other information. Déjà vu?
Automakers, on an individual proprietary basis and at their
sole discretion would be able to develop and implement ExVe
systems that would, de facto, control all third-party access to
vehicle Information - including access by the aftermarket.
Whether a manufacturer of tools, equipment, parts or supplies;
a service or repair professional; a vocational tech school, instructor or aftermarket trainer; regulator; or consumer - this difference is crucial and warrants your immediate attention.
Both new VCI architectures facilitate simultaneous access to
data by "approved" multiple users and level of access to data
being tiered to a user's bona fide "need to know," determined by
each automaker. For example, an insurance company wouldn't
necessarily need or get the same level of access that a service/
repair technician might or that an automaker's development
engineer would.
Finally, the two new proposed architectures under consideration each provide enhanced security protocols and measures.
Individual onboard electronic control modules (ECUs) could
continue to have their own security (each with electronic keys
a vetted user would need to provide). But access to a vehicle
would be routed through different master gateways.

November 2016

ExVe Puts the Automaker-Aftermarket Competitive Balance
at a Tipping Point
Today's legislation and regulatory environment clearly requires automakers make available the same level of diagnostics
as provided to their franchised dealer network for a non-discriminatory price. Without adequate safeguards that protect the
aftermarket and public interest, ExVe allows only automakers
to control, monitor and dish out access to vehicle data, software
and information as each sees fit.
To summarize, automakers would be able to decide which
third parties - including tool companies, researchers, white hat
hackers, consumer advocates and others - will be granted access to vehicle service information, data and software. Secondly,
ExVe would enable automakers to also limit or curtail the degree of access and use by third parties. For instance, automakers
could also leverage ExVe to restrict access or limit the level of
access to information. In addition, automakers could amend the
current "read and write" software functionality available to the
aftermarket to "read only." While these and other possible decisions may well suit an automaker's interests, they do not serve
the interests of the aftermarket, consumers or the public. If all
access to information is routed solely through the automakers,
consumers and every aftermarket sector will be affected.
While the impact will vary between sectors, the market viability of some, such as the aftermarket scan tool market, could
be compromised. Consider these examples of how certain aftermarket sectors could be impacted:
* Tool and equipment manufacturers could face losing direct

MACS Service Reports

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of MACS Service Reports - 2016