Cyberattacks Against Auto Industry Rise Becoming More Costly

Forbes - Mar 13th, 2025

Cyberattacks on the automotive industry surged dramatically last year, with a report from Upstream Security revealing that 60% of cybersecurity incidents in 2024 affected thousands to millions of mobility assets, including vehicles and EV charging stations. The report highlights a threefold increase in massive-scale cyber incidents, impacting millions of vehicles. Hackers have evolved their strategies, targeting automakers and suppliers with deep pockets, causing significant financial and operational disruptions. Notable incidents include ransomware attacks on a Japanese automaker and a Chinese supplier, as well as a breach affecting 15,000 dealerships, resulting in over $1 billion in losses.

The report underscores a growing gap between existing regulations and the evolving threat landscape, urging industry stakeholders to adopt proactive cybersecurity measures beyond compliance. Upstream's multi-level defense approach includes monitoring millions of vehicles and leveraging AI to detect threats. Despite these efforts, experts predict a further increase in cyberattacks this year, driven by financial motivations. The report calls for heightened vigilance as cybercriminals continue to adapt, posing significant risks to vehicle safety, operational continuity, and data privacy.

Data Breach Automotive Industry Cyberattacks Ransomware Ai In Cybersecurity Upstream Security Jason Masker Yoav Levy

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.6

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive overview of the increasing threat of cyberattacks in the automotive industry, supported by credible data from Upstream Security. It effectively communicates the scale and implications of these attacks, although it could benefit from additional perspectives and verification of certain claims. The writing is clear and accessible, making the complex topic understandable for a general audience. While the article is timely and addresses issues of public interest, its potential to drive significant engagement or policy change is limited. Overall, it serves as a valuable resource for raising awareness about automotive cybersecurity but could be strengthened by incorporating a wider range of viewpoints and more detailed transparency about data sources and methodologies.

Accuracy

The article provides a detailed account of the rise in cyberattacks against the automotive industry, citing specific statistics and incidents that are largely supported by the Upstream Security report. For instance, it accurately reports the increase in massive-scale incidents from 5% in 2023 to 19% in 2024. However, verification is needed for specific details such as the exact economic losses from the dealership software provider attack and the specific incidents involving the U.S. division of a Japanese automaker and a Chinese supplier. Overall, the article is factually accurate but would benefit from additional verification of certain claims.

Balance

The article primarily presents the perspective of the cybersecurity company Upstream Security and its representatives. While it offers a comprehensive view of the challenges faced by the automotive industry, it lacks input from other stakeholders such as automakers, dealerships, or regulatory bodies. This focus on a single perspective may lead to a slight imbalance, as it does not fully explore alternative viewpoints or potential industry responses to these threats.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and uses clear, straightforward language. It effectively conveys the increase in cyberattacks and the associated risks to the automotive industry. The logical flow of information aids comprehension, and the inclusion of specific examples and quotes enhances the narrative. The tone remains neutral and informative throughout, making the article easy to understand for a general audience.

Source quality

The primary source of information is Upstream Security, a reputable cybersecurity company specializing in automotive security. The article includes quotes from a director at Upstream, adding credibility to the claims. However, the reliance on a single source could introduce bias, as the company's interests may align with promoting its services. Including additional sources, such as independent cybersecurity experts or industry analysts, would enhance the report's credibility.

Transparency

The article provides some transparency regarding its sources, primarily citing the Upstream Security report. However, it lacks detailed explanation of the methodology behind the reported statistics and incidents. Greater transparency about how the data was collected and analyzed, as well as any potential conflicts of interest, would improve the article's transparency score.