We're glad you like it! :)

Thank you for your feedback, we're very happy to hear that :)

Thank you so much, we're glad you like it!

You're very welcome! Good news - the video for Part 7 is already in our production pipeline. Stay tuned :)

Thank you very much for your feedback. We will take it into consideration for future videos!

The SWE.4 activities are typically done by the developers themselves, unless independence is required (e.g. because of Functional Safety requirements). We hope this helps you further!

Sorry for the inconvenience. Could you please specify which link you're using? In case you want to download the white paper, this link should work: www.kuglermaag.com/automotive-cybersecurity/software-update-management-system/. Let us know if you have any further issues!

You're very welcome.

😊😊

ک😊ف

We're glad that you like it :)

Thank you for your feedback :)

Strictly taken are safety analyses not part of the architecture. But they are necessary to support the adequacy and correctness of the architecture. All together (architecture, analyses, …) these work products contribute to the safety concept. We hope this helps you further!

Vielen Dank, dann haben wir unser Ziel erreicht.

In general requirements are more “what” must be done or implemented, not so much “how” to do or implement it. But of cause is a TSR already the “how” to implement a FSR. That kind of relationship applies to any hierarchical levels of requirements. We hope this helps you further!

In systems engineering, you define the system with its boundaries, interfaces and components. This is a logical segmentation of the product. This also implies that the definition of a system differs from your perspective: A car maker defines the car as a system, a tier1 or tier2 supplier calls their component a system, etc.. To address this constellation, Automotive SPICE uses generic terms: On the left side of the view, where the parts of the system are defined, ASPICE calls these portions "elements". On the right side, ASPICE names the same parts "units". These are parts of the system, eg components, ready for testing.

We're glad you like it!

Thank you very much for your feedback :)

Hi there, the answer is right in the model: For example, SWE.5 BP3 stating “…The test specification shall be suitable to provide evidence for compliance of the integrated software items with the software architectural design.” By the way, this is true for any of the test processes: they test for compliance with their counterpart on the left side of the V. We hope this helps you!

Thank you so much - we're glad that you're now a part of our community! :)

Yes, it is normal that the OEM does not provide the FSC. It is his responsibility. And yes, the OEM must then provide (good!) functional safety requirements with ASILs allocated. The supplier does not need to know the full FSC and should however know for which item(s) his development is. And that is normally the case. We hope this helps you further!

@@ULSolutionsSIS Thanks for the answer. As part of the safety culture I usually insist on understanding the FSC, especially when FSR's are badly written or incomplete. Just saying "it's the OEM's responsibility" is not ok if you suspect incompleteness or incorrectness in upstream work products.

@Johnny Bravo Thank you very much for your feedback! Independence does not mean third party. As long as you comply to the independence criteria specified in part 2 of ISO 26262 that is fine. Especially in large organizations the independence criteria can be fulfilled by an other department than the developing department. We hope this helps you further!

@@ULSolutionsSIS Thank you very much. So the requirements are similar to that of IEC 61508.

Thank you so much for the call! And for sure you shouldn't miss Part II: kzbin.info/www/bejne/i5WakIaKaZ6Fn8U.

We're glad to hear that you like our videos! :)

Thank you for your feedback! :)

We're glad that you like it - thanks a lot for your feedback!

Thanks for your question! You have to distinguish between safety goals which are the top-level safety requirements on the vehicle level and more detailed safety requirements. Here are some examples: Safety goals: - The steering column lock shall be inhibited when the vehicle is in motion. - The airbag shall not deploy unless there has been an accident. Safety requirements: - The motion of the window lift shall be stopped if the “pinch” force exceeds the defined limit. - Power assist shall be disabled if it becomes unpredictable, that is, if it causes the steering wheel to “jump” unexpectedly, or to shudder excessively in use. - The … system shall provide correct status information. These examples give you an idea of what we are talking about. We hope this helps you further! :)

Thank you so much!

You're very welcome :)

Thanks for the great feedback, we appreciate it!

You're welcome! :)

We're glad that you like it! :)

We're glad to hear that! :)

@Siva Kumar Surala you're very welcome! :)

@Hui Jin Your assumption is correct. The check on feasibility checks on technical, but also managerial implications of a technical solutions. Please keep in mind that any doubts about the feasibility are a risk and should be tracked accordingly. We hope this answers your question!

@Bryan Kobe Depending on the market, there are further specifications such as the GSR (General Safety Regulation) for the EU. This lists the type categories accordingly. These are defined and described in further UN-ECE regulations. In case of doubt, the National Authorities are responsible for providing information. We hope this answers your question!

Thank you very much for your feedback :)

@vishrut kumar Thank you very much for pointing this out - it was a typo which has been corrected in the meantime! :)

@youturn The SW test strategy is described as early as possible. Typically you describe a test strategy across all test levels and ensure that you cover the full functionality, account for regression testing and also address the issue how to approach testing under time constraints. The strategy should also cover entry and exit criteria, test interruption criteria, responsibilities, test environment, test coverage goals, etc. We hope that answers your question! :)

@bharath great question. Here are examples of HSRs from some of our training material: • The seat sensor shall signal “unoccupied” when no object is on the seat or if object weight < 5 kg. • A stuck at closed of S2 shall be detected and a reset of both µCs shall be initiated in case of stuck at closed. • The activation signals of the ATD µC and the Safety µC for the switches shall be compared for equality and a reset shall be initiated if they are contradictory. • The comparator shall detect contradictory signal values not faster than 200 msec. • The comparator shall detect contradictory signal values latest after 600 msec. These requirements are allocated to certain parts of the hardware. We hope this helps you further!

@@ULSolutionsSIS . Perfect! Thanks for the reply.

Thank you very much, we're already working on the next cybersecurity video. Subscribe to our channel to not miss the upcoming video :)

Hi there, thanks for your feedback! We do not cover the complete process but in each the three major points. All engineering processes on system- and SW-level require traceabilities. So, even these kind of “global” functions should be traceable to SW architecture and SW detailed design. As these functions are required in several high level components, you may use a combination of references and traces. How you do that depends on your tooling and the set-up of your processes. We hope this helps you further!

Thank you very much! :)

Hi there, we are not 100% sure what you refer to as “SW module”. The expectation of the SW qualification test is to test the complete software as a black box against the software requirements. Typically, this kind of test does not require the stubbing of other modules, unless your complete software is one of many modules. We hope this helps you further!

Thank you for pointing it out! :)

We're glad that you like it :)