aiqbench analysis
This research addresses the critical latency trade-offs in autonomous vehicle security by formalizing attestation as a runtime contract that distinguishes between tampering, stale evidence, and decision delays. Evaluated on a hardware-in-the-loop V2I platform, the study demonstrates that configuring attestation intervals requires balancing cryptographic freshness bounds against physical authorization deadlines rather than relying solely on security requirements.
Mission-Aware Attestation Envelopes for Time-Critical Autonomous Action: A Hardware-in-the-Loop V2I Study
arXiv:2610.08771v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: An autonomous system that asks for a privileged physical action is usually gated on integrity evidence: a platform proves what it is running, and the request is granted or refused on that basis. Such a gate is normally treated as a predicate, yet the evidence behind it has an age, the decision that consumes it has a latency, and the physical system that waits for it has a deadline. We formulate mission-aware attestation as a runtime assurance contract that holds only when integrity is valid, the evidence is fresh enough, and the decision completes inside a budget derived from the current physical state. The contract yields four operational outcomes where a binary gate yields two, separating a refusal caused by tampering from one caused by stale evidence and from one caused by a late decision. We evaluate it on a hardware-in-the-loop vehicle-to-infrastructure platform: a driving simulator supplies the physical state and the authorisation deadline, while a microcontroller on-board unit and a TPM-backed roadside unit running Linux integrity measurement supply the assurance evidence. A security-blind model admits the whole operating space and a hardware-informed one three quarters of it, and every point it refuses fails the freshness margin rather than the response margin. Moving the attestation interval across the range the verifier permits costs about as much as a fivefold scaling of the latency distribution, and the interval is directly configurable, which makes it the immediately actionable deployment parameter. If the freshness bound does not exceed the authorisation budget, every late decision is also stale and lateness becomes unobservable, so the attestation interval and the freshness bound cannot be chosen from security requirements alone.
Abstract:An autonomous system that asks for a privileged physical action is usually gated on integrity evidence: a platform proves what it is running, and the request is granted or refused on that basis. Such a gate is normally treated as a predicate, yet the evidence behind it has an age, the decision that consumes it has a latency, and the physical system that waits for it has a deadline. We formulate mission-aware attestation as a runtime assurance contract that holds only when integrity is valid, the evidence is fresh enough, and the decision completes inside a budget derived from the current physical state. The contract yields four operational outcomes where a binary gate yields two, separating a refusal caused by tampering from one caused by stale evidence and from one caused by a late decision. We evaluate it on a hardware-in-the-loop vehicle-to-infrastructure platform: a driving simulator supplies the physical state and the authorisation deadline, while a microcontroller on-board unit and a TPM-backed roadside unit running Linux integrity measurement supply the assurance evidence. A security-blind model admits the whole operating space and a hardware-informed one three quarters of it, and every point it refuses fails the freshness margin rather than the response margin. Moving the attestation interval across the range the verifier permits costs about as much as a fivefold scaling of the latency distribution, and the interval is directly configurable, which makes it the immediately actionable deployment parameter. If the freshness bound does not exceed the authorisation budget, every late decision is also stale and lateness becomes unobservable, so the attestation interval and the freshness bound cannot be chosen from security requirements alone.
25 pages, 4 figures, 8 tables. Accepted at Modelling and Simulation for Autonomous Systems (MESAS 2026), to appear in Springer LNCS
Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Robotics (cs.RO); Systems and Control (eess.SY)
arXiv:2610.08771 [cs.CR]
(or arXiv:2610.08771v1 [cs.CR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.08771 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 395 words
Related coverage

Advancing AI Infrastructure for Agentic AI with NVIDIA DOCA In-Silicon Security
NVIDIA · Jun 1, 2026

News
Quantum Computing Report · Jul 25, 2026

Brief independent investigation of agents’ behavior, reasoning and collaboration in the OpenAI / Hugging Face hacking incident
METR · Aug 26, 2026
D3ARC: Time-Critical Distributed Disaster Detection for Asynchronous Cooperative Multi-Robot Systems
arXiv · Sep 9, 2026