ANNEX XIV
ANTI-TAMPERING, SECURITY AND CYBERSECURITY
1. INTRODUCTION
This Annex lays down measures regarding the type-approval of anti-tampering, security and cybersecurity systems.
2. DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this Annex, the definitions in UN Regulation No 155 ( 1 ) shall apply.
‘Attacks’ shall be understood as comprising tampering attempts, attempts to circumvent security and cyber-attacks.
3. REQUIREMENTS FOR TYPE-APPROVAL
3.1. Responsibilities of manufacturers
It is the responsibility of the manufacturer that the vehicle type (with regard to emissions) is equipped with sufficient anti-tampering, security and cybersecurity measures to make it resistant against tampering, cybersecurity and security threats arising in all phases of its life-cycle.
To fulfil this responsibility, the vulnerabilities that may lead to tampering shall be minimised to the fullest extent possible, based on the best available knowledge at the time of type-approval, for all systems listed in Article 4(7) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1257.
This shall be deemed to be complied with when:
(a)
the vehicle type with regard to emissions satisfies the requirements of UN Regulation No 155;
and
(b)
the manufacturer’s vulnerability/threat analysis and risk assessment consider, where applicable, the aims of Regulation (EU) 2024/1257 and in particular:
(i)
for fuel and reagent injection system, engine and engine control units and pollution control systems, the manufacturer’s vulnerability/threat analysis and risk assessment considers at least the high-level vulnerabilities/threats, examples of vulnerabilities or attack methods, and examples of mitigations of Table 4.1 of Appendix 1 to this Annex;
(ii)
for the OBM system, OBD system and OBFCM device the manufacturer’s vulnerability/threat analysis and risk assessment considers at least the high-level vulnerabilities/threats, examples of vulnerability or attack method, and examples of mitigations of Table 4.2 of Appendix 1 to this Annex;
(iii)
for the odometer, the total distance indicated and total distance values are protected according to UN Regulation No 39 ( 2 ) as amended by the 02 series of amendments;
(iv)
for traction batteries and related management systems, electric motor and related control units and environmental vehicle passport, the manufacturer’s vulnerability/threat analysis and risk assessment considers at least the high-level vulnerabilities/threats, examples of vulnerabilities or attack methods, and examples of mitigations of Table 4.3 of Appendix 1 to this Annex.
Without prejudice to requirements of paragraph 7.2.2.2(g) of UN Regulation No 155, the manufacturer shall monitor for, detect, respond to and inform the approval authority on evidences of successful attacks on any of the systems listed in Article 4(7) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1257.
3.2. Responsibilities of approval authorities
Without prejudice to the requirements of paragraph 5.1.1 of UN Regulation No 155, type-approval authorities shall verify whether the vulnerability/threat analysis and risk assessment conducted by the manufacturer is appropriate and sufficient. This verification shall ensure that the vulnerabilities and threats of the tables in Appendix 1 have been appropriately managed by the manufacturer. The examples in these tables shall be used as reference.
The type-approval authority may require additional documentation to verify that the proposed mitigation actions are correctly implemented.
Type-approval authorities are encouraged to exchange best practices and experiences within the framework of the Forum for Exchange of Information on Enforcement as established in Regulation (EU) 2018/858.
3.3. Responsibilities of market surveillance authorities
Following the requirements in Article 8 to Regulation (EU) 2018/858 ( 3 ) , the market surveillance authorities shall carry out regular tests to verify whether anti-tampering, security and cybersecurity measures are sufficient. Market surveillance authorities shall be responsible for vehicle selection, application of testing methods, follow-up activities, reporting and corrective or restrictive measures.
3.3.1. Vehicle selection for market surveillance
When carrying out market surveillance tests, the market surveillance authorities shall select the vehicle types with regards to emissions to be tested based on a risk assessment. Vehicle types (with regards to emissions) deemed to pose a greater risk according to the risk assessment shall be prioritised for testing according to paragraph 3.3.2.
The risk assessment shall consider the following aspects:
(a)
Evidence that effective tampering products are widely available on the market for use on certain vehicle types with regard to emissions;
(b)
Evidence of known vulnerabilities affecting certain vehicle types with regard to emissions;
(c)
Evidence about the prevalence of tampering for certain vehicle types with regard to emissions (including, among others, OBM data submitted by vehicle manufacturers);
(d)
The number of vehicles in circulation belonging to certain vehicle types with regards to emissions;
(e)
Other relevant information, including test results of recognised third parties and information exchanged in the Forum for Exchange of Information on Enforcement, as established in Regulation (EU) 2018/858.
3.3.2. Testing methods
Market surveillance authorities may employ any test method to establish whether vehicles belonging to a certain vehicle type with regard to emissions are sufficiently protected against attacks which could affect the proper operation of systems listed in Article 4(7) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1257. Market surveillance authorities are encouraged to exchange best practices and experiences within the framework of the Forum for Exchange of Information on Enforcement as established in Regulation (EU) 2018/858.
The good state of each test vehicle shall be verified before conducting the tests, ensuring in particular the proper operation of systems listed in Article 4(7) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1257 and that they have not been subject to attacks in the scope of the tests. The verification shall ensure that no relevant fault code is stored nor any relevant warning light is on, that none of the pollutant monitoring statuses is in ‘Error’ and that the tampering detection level as set out in Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1707 reported by the OBM is ‘Level 0’.
This verification shall also include, where appropriate, the performance of an ex ante Type 1 or RDE test according to this Regulation. The attack test shall not proceed unless the emission results of the ex ante test fulfil the applicable emission limits.
The tests conducted by market surveillance authorities shall aim to reproduce the attacks likely to be experienced by certain vehicle types with regard to emissions in the field due to a high benefit-cost ratio. These may include attempts to tamper with vehicles by exploiting existing tampering, security and cybersecurity vulnerabilities, or by installing tampering products that are available on the market. The selection of attacks shall be based on the risk assessment described in paragraph 3.3.1.
3.3.3. Test evaluation
The market surveillance authority shall determine the outcome of the test by evaluating the effects of the attack on exhaust emissions or on the integrity of the data used by the systems listed in Article 4(7) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1257, taking account of the response of the vehicle to the attacks. The authority shall come to a ‘pass’, ‘follow-up’ or ‘fail’ decision on one or both aspects, as appropriate according to the nature of the attack.
A ‘pass’ outcome requires no further action.
A ‘follow-up’ outcome shall be followed by the activities described in paragraph 3.3.4.
A ‘fail’ outcome shall be followed by the activities described in paragraph 3.3.5.
Following the attack, the market surveillance authority may condition the vehicle by driving it over a certain distance, over multiple trips, or in other conditions that are deemed appropriate for the attack to be detected.
3.3.3.1. Evaluation of effects on exhaust emissions (pollutants monitored by OBM)
After the attack and optional conditioning, an ex post Type 1 or RDE test shall be performed. The ex ante and ex post tests shall be of the same type. If two RDE tests are driven, the tests shall be performed over the same route, with similar driving behaviour, and under comparable environmental and traffic conditions.
Following the ex post emissions test, the test outcome shall be determined for each pollutant monitored by the OBM system. The test outcome shall be considered a ‘pass’ if one of the following is observed:
(a)
Exhaust emissions do not increase substantially from those of the ex ante emissions test. A substantial increase shall be understood as an exhaust emissions increase by more than 100 % of the applicable emission limit and where emissions of the ex post test are above the applicable OBD threshold.
(b)
Exhaust emissions are substantially increased to a level of up to 2,5 times the applicable emission limit, while the tampering detection level is set to ‘Level 1’ or higher.
(c)
Exhaust emissions are substantially increased to a level equal or higher than 2,5 times the applicable emission limit, while the tampering detection level is set to ‘Level 2’ and the corresponding OBM status has transitioned to ‘Error’.
If the test outcome is not a direct ‘pass’, the vehicle may be conditioned further to allow more evaluation time for the OBM system to transition the pollutant monitoring statuses and tampering detection level.
When, after further conditioning, the monitoring statuses or tampering detection level do not transition in such a way that they lead to a ‘pass’ outcome, the test outcome shall be considered a ‘follow-up’ if one of the following outcomes is observed:
(a)
Exhaust emissions are substantially increased to a level of up to 2,5 times the applicable emission limit, while the tampering detection level is set to ‘Level 0’.
(b)
Exhaust emissions are substantially increased to a level equal or higher than 2,5 times the applicable emission limit, while the corresponding OBM status has transitioned to ‘Error’ and the tampering detection level is set to ‘Level 1’ or lower.
If the outcome is neither a ‘pass’ nor a ‘follow-up’, it shall be considered a ‘fail’.
Vehicles not equipped with an OBM system shall be excluded from the evaluation of the effects on exhaust emissions according to this paragraph.
3.3.3.2. Evaluation of effects on exhaust emissions (pollutants not monitored by OBM)
After the attack and optional conditioning, an ex post Type 1 or RDE test shall be performed. The ex ante and ex post tests shall be of the same type. If two RDE tests are driven, the tests shall be performed over the same route, with similar driving behaviour, and under comparable environmental and traffic conditions.
Following the ex post emissions test, for all pollutants not monitored by the OBM system, the test outcome shall be considered a ‘follow-up’ when the pollutants are substantially increased to a level above the applicable OBD threshold values as specified in paragraph 6.8.2 of UN Regulation No 154 while the malfunction indicator (MI) is not activated. In any other case, it shall be considered a ‘pass’.
If the test outcome is not a direct ‘pass’, the vehicle may be conditioned further to allow more evaluation time for the OBD system to activate the malfunction indicator.
3.3.3.3. Evaluation of effects on the integrity of data
Following the attack and optional conditioning, the outcome shall be considered a ‘pass’ when the attack is unsuccessful in modifying data of the systems listed in Article 4(7) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1257.
If the attack is successful in modifying data of the systems listed in Article 4(7) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1257, the outcome shall be evaluated by the market surveillance authority on the following two criteria:
(a)
Impact: what the relevance of data modification is in terms of impact on the environment or on the aims of Regulation (EU) 2024/1257;
(b)
Response: whether the vehicle responded by adequately conveying information about the invalidity of the modified data.
When the impact is regarded as insignificant, the outcome shall be considered a ‘pass’.
When the impact is regarded as significant, and the response is deemed adequate by the authority, the outcome shall be considered a ‘pass’.
When the impact is regarded as significant and the response is deemed inadequate, the outcome shall be considered a ‘follow-up’. In such cases, the market surveilance authority shall contact the manufacturer to inform them of the outcome of the test, the characteristics of the vehicle and the nature of the tests performed.
The manufacturer may propose further conditioning to allow additional time for the vehicle to respond to the attack, or repeated tests on similar vehicles. Following the further conditioning or repeated tests, the response of the vehicle shall be evaluated. If the vehicle response is still deemed inadequate by the market surveillance authority, the outcome shall be confirmed as a ‘follow-up’. If the response of the vehicle is deemed adequate, the outcome shall be considered a ‘pass’.
3.3.4. Follow-up activities
In the case of an attack with an outcome considered as ‘follow-up’, it shall be investigated in detail, where necessary in cooperation with the manufacturer and the granting type-approval authority, to establish:
(a)
which vulnerabilities were exploited and whether these were identified at the time of type-approval;
(b)
in case that vulnerabilities were identified at the time of type-approval, whether the mitigation measures have been properly applied;
(c)
whether the vulnerabilities apply to other vehicle types with regard to emissions.
Without prejudice to requirements of Chapter XI of Regulation (EU) 2018/858, the manufacturer shall, within a period agreed with the market surveillance authority, propose a technical solution to the market surveillance authority to increase the resistance of the vehicle against attacks, either by effectively mitigating the exploitation of the vulnerability or by implementing methods to detect the attack and initiate an appropriate response, along with a plan to implement this technical solution. The market surveillance authority shall evaluate the technical solution and accompanying implementation plan and request modifications where appropriate.
When the technical solution and implementation plan are accepted by the market surveillance authority, the manufacturer shall proceed with the implementation of the technical solution as agreed with the market surveillance authority.
When the technical solution and implementation plan fail to satisfy the market surveillance authority, the outcome shall be considered a ‘fail’.
The results of the investigation of attacks with a ‘follow-up’ outcome shall be brought to the attention of to the Forum for Exchange of Information on Enforcement as established in Regulation (EU) 2018/858.
3.3.5. Reporting, corrective and administrative measures following a ‘fail’ outcome
A ‘fail’ outcome upon an attack shall be investigated in detail, where necessary in cooperation with the manufacturer and the granting type-approval authority, to establish:
(a)
which vulnerabilities were exploited and whether these were identified at the time of type-approval;
(b)
in case that vulnerabilities were identified at the time of type-approval, whether the mitigation measures have been properly applied;
(c)
whether the vulnerabilities apply to other vehicle types with regard to emissions.
The details of tests with a ‘fail’ outcome shall be reported to the manufacturer, and the market surveillance authorities shall require the manufacturer to take measures in accordance with Chapter XI of Regulation (EU) 2018/858 to ensure that the exploited vulnerability is effectively mitigated, preferably by an over-the-air software update of the relevant vehicle systems according to UN Regulation No 156 ( 4 ) .
In determining the appropriateness of corrective measures, authorities shall consider the state of technology of the vehicle type with regard to emissions, the technical feasibility of possible mitigations and the likelihood of exploitation of the vulnerability (approximated by the benefit-cost ratio of the attack). The manufacturer may, with appropriate supporting evidence, demonstrate that a vulnerability cannot be effectively mitigated or that an appropriate response from the tampering detection cannot be realised, due to technical limitations of the vehicle’s architecture. If the manufacturer comprehensively demonstrates to the market surveillance authority that a mitigation is not technically feasible, the manufacturer shall not be required to provide corrective measures.
The results of the investigation of attacks with a ‘fail’ outcome shall be brought to the attention of to the Forum for Exchange of Information on Enforcement as established in Regulation (EU) 2018/858. In case of vulnerabilities that cannot be effectively mitigated due to technical limitations are identified, the Forum for Exchange of Information on Enforcement shall consider requesting corresponding additional mitigations in future type approvals.
3.4. Roles and responsibilities for the Commission and recognised third parties
The Commission and recognised third parties may verify whether vehicles belonging to a certain vehicle type with regard to emissions are sufficiently protected against tampering attempts, security and cybersecurity attacks affecting the systems listed in Article 4(7) of Regulation (EU) 2024/1257 according to the methods described in paragraph 3.3.2.
4. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
4.1. Administrative provisions for anti-tampering, security and cybersecurity
Documentation to demonstrate compliance with paragraph 3.1 shall be made available by the manufacturer in two parts: (a) The formal documentation package for the approval, according to documentation requirements in UN Regulation No 155 paragraph 3.3, which shall be supplied to the type-approval authority at the time of submission of the type approval application. This documentation package shall be used by the type-approval authority as the basic reference for the approval process. The type-approval authority shall ensure that this documentation package remains available for at least 10 years counted from the time when production of the vehicle type (with regard to emissions) is definitively discontinued; (b) Additional material relevant to the requirements of this regulation may be retained by the manufacturer, but made open for inspection at the time of type-approval. The manufacturer shall ensure that any material made open for inspection at the time of type approval remains available for at least a period of 10 years counted from the time when production of the vehicle type (with regard to emissions) is definitively discontinued.
In cases where information is shown to be covered by intellectual property rights or to constitute specific know-how of the manufacturer or of their suppliers, the manufacturer or their suppliers shall make available sufficient information to enable the checks referred to in this Regulation to be made properly. Such information shall be treated on a confidential basis.
The manufacturer shall provide a manufacturer’s declaration of compliance with the anti-tampering, security and cybersecurity requirements of this Regulation for the purposes of type-approval. This declaration shall use the format provided in Appendix 2 to this Annex.
( 1 ) UN Regulation No 155 – Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regards to cyber security and cyber security management system ( OJ L, 2025/5, 10.1.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2025/5/oj ).
( 2 ) Regulation No 39 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN/ECE) – Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the speedometer and odometer equipment including its installation [2018/1857] ( OJ L 302, 28.11.2018, p. 106 , ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1857/oj ).
( 3 ) Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on the approval and market surveillance of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles ( OJ L 151, 14.6.2018, p. 1 , ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/858/oj ).
( 4 ) UN Regulation No 156 – Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regards to software update and software updates management system [2021/388] ( OJ L 82, 9.3.2021, p. 60 , ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/388/oj ).