Why Misinformation in AI Systems is a Wake-Up Call for Automotive Software Engineers

Modern cars run on code as much as they run on gas. Think about that next time you tap your infotainment screen or rely on driver assistance features. The software powering these systems isn’t just complex—it’s critical to safety, performance, and your driving experience.

The Challenge of Reliable Data in Automotive Software

As an automotive software engineer, I’ve learned one hard truth: data is only as good as its source. I once spent a weekend debugging a sensor issue that turned out to be a single corrupted calibration file. That taught me: never assume. Never trust blindly.

It reminded me of a recent mix-up about the 1946 Jefferson nickel—some claimed it was magnetic, others said it wasn’t. The confusion spread fast online. But unlike online debates, misinformation in automotive software doesn’t just confuse collectors. It can cause real-world failures. A wrong sensor reading. A delayed brake response. A system that thinks the road is clear when it’s not.

Just as the coin mystery was cleared up by experts sharing verified metallurgical data, automotive systems need built-in checks to stop bad data before it causes harm.

Data Integrity in Embedded Systems

Today’s vehicles are packed with embedded systems. Engine control. ADAS. Climate. Infotainment. All of them depend on real-time data—sensor readings, firmware logic, and CAN bus messages. But if that data is off, even slightly, the results can be serious.

Imagine a calibration error in engine timing. A tiny offset in milliseconds could mean poor fuel economy. Or worse, engine knock. That’s why every input—from wheel speed to radar data—must be validated the moment it enters the system.

Take this CAN bus validator. Simple, but vital:


struct CANMessage {
uint32_t id;
uint8_t data[8];
uint8_t length;
};

bool isValidMessage(const CANMessage& msg) {
// Validate message ID range
if (msg.id < 0x000 || msg.id > 0x7FF) {
return false;
}
// Validate data length
if (msg.length > 8) {
return false;
}
// Additional validation logic based on application-specific requirements
// ...
return true;
}


It’s not flashy. But it’s the kind of code that keeps systems honest.

Building Trust in Connected Cars

Today’s cars talk to the cloud. They get OTA updates. They pull traffic data. They learn your habits. But every connection is a potential entry point for bad data. If an update is tampered with or a sensor feed is spoofed, the car could act on lies.

Think of it like the coin story—someone shared a claim, and it spread. But in cars, the stakes are higher. We can’t rely on community fact-checking after the fact. We need verification before the car acts.

Secure boot and digital signatures are key. They ensure firmware comes from a trusted source. No unsigned code. No mystery updates.


#include // Pseudocode for cryptographic library

bool verifyFirmwareSignature(const uint8_t* firmware, size_t size, const uint8_t* signature, const uint8_t* publicKey) {
// Verify the digital signature using the public key
return crypto_verify(firmware, size, signature, publicKey);
}

void secureBootProcess(const uint8_t* firmware, size_t size, const uint8_t* signature, const uint8_t* publicKey) {
if (verifyFirmwareSignature(firmware, size, signature, publicKey)) {
// Signature is valid, proceed with firmware update
flash_write(firmware, size);
} else {
// Signature is invalid, log error and halt update
log_error("Firmware signature verification failed.");
}
}


This isn’t just about hackers. It’s about trust. Drivers need to know their car won’t accept a fake update that disables brakes or tweaks speed limits.

Infotainment Systems and User Experience

Infotainment isn’t just about music and maps. It’s now a command center—handling voice commands, navigation, diagnostics, even payments. But with more features comes more risk. A voice assistant misinterpreting a command. A navigation app sending you the wrong way. A third-party app with outdated speed limits.

Users expect accuracy. And when they get it wrong, they stop trusting the car.

Validating Third-Party Integrations

Most infotainment systems run apps from Spotify, Google, or Apple. Great for functionality. Risky if those apps push bad data. A navigation app claiming a 70 mph limit on a 45 mph road? That’s dangerous.

We fix this by building validation layers—checks between the app and the car. Multiple sources. Agreement before action.

• Check real-time data across providers to catch outliers fast.
• If one source disagrees, fall back to safe defaults—like lower speed limits or conservative route guidance.
• Log errors to train better models and fix recurring issues.

Example: Cross-Referencing GPS Data

GPS isn’t perfect. Satellites shift. Signals bounce. Signals get blocked. So why trust one stream?

Smart systems compare multiple sources—onboard GPS, cellular, cloud maps—and look for agreement. Here’s a basic version:


struct GPSData {
double latitude;
double longitude;
double speed;
double altitude;
};

bool validateGPSData(const GPSData& gps1, const GPSData& gps2, const GPSData& gps3) {
const double tolerance = 0.001; // 1 km tolerance
return (abs(gps1.latitude - gps2.latitude) < tolerance && abs(gps1.longitude - gps2.longitude) < tolerance && abs(gps1.latitude - gps3.latitude) < tolerance && abs(gps1.longitude - gps3.longitude) < tolerance); }

Three sources. One consensus. That’s how you drive with confidence.

IoT and the CAN Bus: A Delicate Ecosystem

The CAN bus is the nervous system of the car. It connects the engine, brakes, sensors, and infotainment. But as cars get smarter, the CAN bus carries more data—and more risk.

Every sensor, every IoT device, every cloud connection adds a new vector for bad data or attacks. A spoofed message on the CAN bus could disable brakes. A corrupted sensor could trick the ADAS.

Securing the CAN Bus

We can’t just assume the messages are real. We have to prove they are.

• Message Authentication: Sign every critical message. Verify before processing.
• Intrusion Detection Systems: Watch for unusual traffic patterns. Stop anomalies early.

<

• Firewalls and Gateways: Keep infotainment isolated from safety-critical systems like braking and steering.

Example: CAN Message Authentication

Here’s how you can sign and verify a CAN message:


struct AuthenticatedCANMessage {
CANMessage message;
uint8_t hmac[32]; // HMAC-SHA256
};

bool verifyCANMessage(const AuthenticatedCANMessage& msg, const uint8_t* secretKey) {
uint8_t computedHmac[32];
computeHMAC(msg.message, sizeof(msg.message), secretKey, computedHmac);
return memcmp(msg.hmac, computedHmac, 32) == 0;
}


No signature? No trust. No trust? No processing.

Conclusion

The 1946 Jefferson nickel taught us something simple: cross-check your sources. In automotive software, that lesson is non-negotiable.

We can’t assume data is clean. We can’t trust updates blindly. We can’t let third-party apps run unchecked.

As engineers, it’s on us to build systems that verify, validate, and verify again. Whether it’s GPS data, OTA updates, or CAN bus messages—accuracy isn’t optional. It’s essential.

Every line of code should reflect that. Because when a driver relies on their car, they’re not just trusting the brand. They’re trusting the data. And the code that protects it.

Let’s build systems that earn that trust—one reliable message at a time.

Related Resources

You might also find these related articles helpful:

• Why Misguided Data Signals Are Sabotaging Your E-Discovery Platform – Lessons from a 1946 Nickel Error Case - Technology is reshaping how legal teams handle discovery. But here’s the hard truth: most E-Discovery platforms ar...
• Developing HIPAA-Compliant HealthTech Software: Lessons from a 1946 Jefferson Nickel Error - Building software for healthcare? HIPAA compliance isn’t just a checkbox—it’s the foundation. I learned this...
• How Developers Can Supercharge Sales Teams with CRM Integrations Inspired by Coin-Grade Precision - Great sales teams don’t just happen—they’re built on smart tech, sharp insights, and tools that actually work for them. ...