Regional Considerations in ITS Cybersecurity

ITS cybersecurity deployments are shaped by regional differences in legal frameworks, governance models, privacy expectations, and system architecture. These variations influence how trust is established, how anonymity is maintained, and how secure communication occurs across jurisdictions. The following subsections highlight key governance, trust, and compliance differences that influence ITS cybersecurity operations globally.

Governance Models

Regional governance of trust frameworks determines who manages certificate policies, who can issue credentials, and how compliance is enforced.

Europe employs a centralized governance model under the European Commission. The Certificate Policy Authority (CPA) governs root-level decisions, including root CA approvals and revocations. Sub-roles such as the Trust List Manager (TLM) and C-ITS point of Contact (CPOC) operate in support of CPA decisions. Governance responsibilities include scheduling European Certificate Trust List (ECTL) signing sessions, maintaining policy documents, and managing enrollment requests.

North America employs a multi-entity consensus model. An SCMS Manager relies on a group of Electors to establish trust by signing a Certificate Trust List (CTL). Electors follow criteria established through working groups and committees, such as the Ecosystem Audit Committee (EAC). Each SCMS Provider is responsible for its own certificate issuance processes, subject to periodic compliance review.

Trust Frameworks and Certificate Lifecycle Management

Trust frameworks define how certificates are issued, validated, and revoked across an ITS environment.

In Europe, trust anchors are maintained within the EU CCMS and published as part of the ECTL, which is managed solely by the TLM. All operations, including root CA inclusion, certificate updates, and revocation, are mediated by the CPOC.

In North America, SCMS Providers will typically comply with a set of requirements (e.g., SCMS Provider Requirements) that define audit procedures, certificate usage rules, and requirements for publishing revocation lists and distributing certificate trust lists. Providers are expected to implement their own misbehavior handling processes including revocation policies and procedures. Root CA revocation and approval are handled via Elector-signed CTLs.

Privacy and Anonymity

ITS systems are designed to prevent long-term tracking and identity exposure by using pseudonym certificates, which are short-term certificates that anonymize the link between individual messages and their originating OBUs. The use of short-lived psuedonym certificates is governed by policy. In Europe, privacy is tightly regulated by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). As a result, European C-ITS deployments emphasize strict data minimization and correlation to identity. Pseudonym certificates are issued and used in a manner that intentionally prevents backend correlation.

In North America, privacy protections are implemented through pseudonymity as well. Certificate are rotated frequently and linkages to vehicle identifies are restricted.

Compliance and Audit

In Europe, accredited Root CAs must pass technical and organizational audits prior to inclusion in the ECTL.

In North America, each SCMS Provider selects an independent PKI auditor to validate conformance with SCMS Manager’s Provider Requirements. Providers must maintain certifications (e.g., ISO 27001 or TISAX), and all Certificate Policy (CP) and Certificate Practices Statement (CPS) documents must reflect the approved policy set.

Learn More

https://cpoc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/data/documents/E01941_EU%20CCMS_CPA_ToR_Proc_Release-1.1_20241015.pdf