Security Lapses and Related

Safety
Issues in Embedded Systems,
Robotics
Anjum Ara Shah, Department of Computer Science
Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan
jovial176@yahoo.com

Abstract Robots can produce powerful

and very rapid movements through a
large operational space. Danger threats
occur from unintentional contact between
these robots and human beings. In this
paper I have tried to discuss the security
and safety issues and steps taken to
make HRI much safer for humans.
Traditional computing is the base of all
contemporary
computing.
Though,
robotics
presents
a
fundamentally
different
platform
than
traditional
computer systems that brings with it an
entirely new set of security issues. At the
present time, humans work in close
collaboration with robots more than
expected. In the resulting circumstances,
contact is inevitable among humans and
robots. Certainly, in many cases, it is in
fact desired. Though, every contact
creates the possibility for an accident or
harm. Careful consideration needs to be
given
to
vulnerability/hazards
assessment. Once the hazards are
identified, they can be eliminated or
trimmed down by design, protection,
management
and
other
methods.
Regulations defined by standards are
thus ambiguous and not easily applicable.

Designing measures that are robot and

context specific may be one way of
ensuring safety in constrained settings,
such as industrial settings, but it falls
short of ensuring safety in HRI in a more
general way. This makes the problem of
ensuring
safety
in
human-robot
interactions difficult. The paper starts
discussion from introducing embedded
systems and gradually moving towards
robotics and the safety and security
issues and related standards defined by
ISO and other organizations for human
robots safety.
Keywords: Robot, Robotics, HRI (Human
Robot Interaction), Traditional Computing,
Human Safety, Security.

I.

INTRODUCTION

This section contains brief introduction of

embedded systems, robot and robotics, so
that the reader gets aware of the subject.
Embedded Systems: Embedded System
integrates software and hardware jointly
and specifically designed to provide given

functionalities, which are often critical. By

their nature, Embedded Systems need
results
and
paradigms
from
both
Computing Systems and Physical Systems
Engineering. An embedded system is a
system that has software embedded into
computer-hardware,
which
makes
a
system dedicated for an application(s) or
specific part of an application or product
or part of a larger system. An embedded
system is one that has dedicated purpose
software
embedded
in
computer
hardware[1].By
another
definition
Embedded Systems are the electronic
systems that contain a microprocessor or
a microcontroller, but we do not think of
them as computersthe computer is
hidden or embedded in the system [2].
Embedded system has three main
components: first it embeds hardware to
give
computer
like
functionalities,
secondly it embeds main application
software generally into flash or ROM and
the
application
software
performs
concurrently the number of tasks and in
last it embeds a real time operating
system (RTOS), which oversee and
supervise the application software tasks
running on the hardware and organizes
the
accesses to
system resources
according
to
priorities
and
timing
constraints of tasks in the system[2].
Robot: The robot is specialized version of
embedded systems. The word robot was
First used by a Czech novelist Karel Capek
in his play titled Rassums Universal
Robots (RUR) in 1920, In Czech language
the word is used for worker or servant, It
is a re- programmable, multifunctional
manipulator pre meditated to move parts,
objects, tools or expert/ specialized
devices through different programmed
and planned motions for the performance
of a diversity of tasks [3]. The robot
accomplish following Processes, path
following, repetitive configuration moves,
Tele-robotics and target moves versus

taught moves and if we talk about where

the robots are currently used and applied,
these are mostly used in Welding,
Painting, Surface finishing, Aerospace and
automotive industries, Light assembly
such as in the micro-electronics industries,
or
consumer
products
industries
Inspection of parts, Under water and
space exploration, dangerous and harmful
waste remediation [5].
Robotics: Robotics is the branch of
electrical, mechanical engineering and
computer science that deals with the
design, manufacturing, functions, and
application of robots, over and above
computer systems for their control
management, information processing and
sensory feedback. These technologies deal
with computerized/automated machines
that can acquire the place of humans in
hazardous and unsafe environments or
manufacturing procedures, or bear a close
resemblance to humans in appearance,
activities, behaviour and/ cognition. Many
of today's robots are inspired by natural
environment contributing to the field of
bio-inspired robotics [4].
History
of
Robotics:
The
first
manufacturing/
industrial
robot
was
introduced in the year 1954 Named by
UNIMATE. It basically originated the
automated production of TV picture tubes,
this programmable robot was designed by
George Devol, who introduced the term
Universal Automation. He soon after that
shortened this to Uni-mation, which then
became the name of the first robot
company in year 1962 [5].
Robotics
use
knowledgebase,
the
characteristic knowledge base for the
design, planning and operation of robotic
systems is given below,
i)Dynamic
system
modeling
and
analysis,
ii)Feedback control, iii)Sensors and signal
conditioning, iv)Actuators (muscles) and
power electronics, v)Hardware/computer

interfacing,
vi)Computer
programming[17]. The Disciplines involved
in robotics are Mathematics, Physics,
Biology, Mechanical, Electrical, Computer
Engineering
and
computer
science.
Robotics uses more than five senses and
they need information that is further than
just five human senses (e.g., ability to see
in the dark, detect and spot tiny amounts
of unseen radiation, measure movement
that is too petite or quick for the human
eye to perceive).

discuss
the
issues
related
to
manufacturing/industrial
robotics
and
mobile robotics and then expands the
research on safety/security issues and
standards defined for avoiding the hazards
in interaction between human and robot.
The research paper is important in the
sense that robotics research has been
denominated service robotics because of
their general goal of getting robots closer
to human social needs, service robotics
such as Marine robotics, Field Robotics,
Therapeutic
Robotics,
Rehabilitation
Robotics,
Construction
Robotics
and
Humanoid Robotics.
Safety: A safety system in our context is a
programmable electronic solution which is
used as one element in preventing an
accident that could result in harming or
killing people [7].

Fig 1: Depicts the sensors in a robot

[2]

The Research Arena: The research paper is

based on Human Robot Interaction (HRI).
The paper focuses on security lapses and
related safety issues in human robot
interaction. The need to work on this topic
was that the robotics research is going
towards evolution of robotics needs, from
the industrial robotics that released the
human operator from danger-response to
the evolution of human social research in
the last half century as a dangerous or
risky tasks to the recent explosion of field
and service robotics to assist the human.
The paper will review different security
and safety issues in human robot
interaction; it will also try to identify the
types of injuries which are mostly caused
by robots to humans. The paper will

Security: This has become increasingly

common in todays circumstances where
human robot interaction is increasing day
by day; we need to prepare ourselves to
deal with security for robot applications in
an intelligent way. We know that robots
are different from traditional computing
devices and it is a big challenge in todays
context to maintain and achieve the
possible security measures [8].
Examples: if we consider a mobile robot
which can even position itself, wherever it
needs to be. If youre working on a robot
in a safe environment (e.g., at some
workshop), it is likely capable of relocating
itself to an unsafe environment for
example, the childrens playroom, or
outdoors. It is possible for a robot to
immediately drive away and be lost
somewhere, or if your robot owns a
microphone, it can relocate itself to be
able to hear you when you suppose youre
out of listening range. An attacker could
even steal your robot by remotely
controlling it to simply drive away from
your residence. It will be significant to

discover the correct abstractions that

enable security to be defined at this level
[8]. It is also essential that we should
respect privacy and do not allow the
applications access to more personal
information than is compulsory.
This leads to consider the security issues
and related safety issues in human robot
interaction and the aim of this research
paper was to study the security and safety
measures which are being practiced now
days to make human robot interaction
more secure and safe.
II.

RELATED WORK

breakdown or collapse of hardware or

software for example a robot runaway,
must absolutely be prevented[14][10], and
this step is considered as from the initial
steps of robot security and safety.
The approach regarding safety of humans
says that the next generation of robots will
coexist with humans and will interact with
us physically. In the paper the researchers
have illustrated some of the motivations
and economic factors that are pushing this
revolution forward. A robot arm that is to
work together with humans should be
placed at a premium safety as a design
consideration [10].

The SSRR community is working in a very

efficient manner for robotics safety and
security, the Robotics Automation Society
(RAS) Technical Committee on Safety,
Security, and Rescue Robotics, was
established in February 1st, 2002 shortly
after the deployment of robots at the 9/11
World
Trade
Centre
collapse
and
subsequent accelerated adoption of robots
for homeland security and public safety.

As Asimovs laws of robotics have it A

robot may not injure a human being or in
other words, under no conditions should a
robot cause destruction or damage to
people, directly or indirectly, in regular
functioning or in failures. An additional
constraint on robot manipulators remains
their performance: their accuracy and
speed in performing tasks as necessary[10]
.

Robot Security is becoming progressively

more important as future robots will be
required to share their working area with
humans in order to achieve a successful
cooperation. The robot's involvement
could be restricted to the laborious and
repetitive effort, while the humans just
have to acts as a administrator or
supervisor and handles exceptions [9].

With the intention of increasing robot

safety, all facets/aspects of manipulator
design, including electronics, mechanics,
and software, should be considered. Along
with the possible strategies for attaining
safety, one of the focal point is on strategy
to prevent collisions and accidents. For
unstructured domains, a comprehensive
description or a picture of the environment
is very difficult, and is not impossible, to
obtain. Consequently, reactive control can
be used, in the presence of a good
sensory
system.
Interaction
control
scheme as impedance control, jointly with
reactive collision avoidance may increase
safety by mean of control. Virtual reality
can be used for realistic simulations of HRI
task, including collisions crashes and
injected errors. In addition to this,
subjective comfort measures associated to
the use of a robotic manipulator can be

The researchers introduced an inherent

robot safety system that could allow a
close interaction between robot and
human beings. The system makes use of a
camera to find the position of a human
being in the workspace of the robot. This
information can be used to avoid
conditions endangering the worker by
slowing down the robot arm pace or in
some cases stopping the robot. In this
case unanticipated robot motions due to

accomplished,
also
related
to
the
perceived safety during robot motion,
depending on robots shape, speed and
posture.

III. SAFETY AND SECURITY IN HUMAN

ROBOT INTERACTION
Cognitive Human-Robot Interaction (cHRI)
has been broadly addressed in the
scientific community. Though, robots are
different
from computers or other
machines, they physically embody the link
between perception and action, whose
intelligent connection is a definition for
robotics. They generate force and have a
body. Hence, the most revolutionary and
challenging feature of the next generation
of robots will be physical HumanRobot
Interaction (pHRI). In pHRI, humans and
robots share the similar workspace,
exchange forces, come in touch with each
other, and cooperate in doing actions on
the environment. This approach is
affordable if robots guarantee human
safety and autonomy [10] .

inobservance of the guarding procedures,

insufficient
guidance
programs
or
erroneous procedures for initial robot
start-up.
Unfavorable
environmental
aspects refer to excessive temperature,
poor sensing in difficult weather or lighting
circumstances, all of these can lead to
false response by the machine or robot.
B. Classification of Injuries
The injuries caused by robots are
classified according to their type between
pinch (which are 56% percent

A. Source of Harms and Incidents

The causes of accidents caused by robots
can be grouped into three main
categories: engineering errors, human
mistakes
and
poor
environmental
conditions. Engineering errors include
errors in the robots mechanics (loose
connections
across
parts,
faulty
electronics), errors made by the controller
(programming bugs, faulty algorithm), etc.
As a consequence, robots might, for
example, fail to stop, or a robot arm might
achieve high, uncontrolled speed, abrupt
motion or acceleration [11]. Accident
caused by these errors cannot be
predicted even by the most attentive
human operator. On the other hand,
human accidents or mishaps, that are
much more controllable, take place
because of a variety of factors, such as
lack
of
concentration,
exhaustion,

Fig. 2 depicts the classifications of

accident sources mentioned above [11]
of overall injuries) and impact (which are
of 44% of overall) injuries. Pinch injury
occurs when a robot traps a worker
between itself or any of its object, whereas
impact injury occurs when robot and
worker
collide.
Consequences
are
classified as minor with no lost work-time,
lost work-time injuries and fatal injuries.
According to studies pinch injuries seem to
be of a more serious nature than impact
accidents.
A more recent approach gives a more
detailed classification of contact scenarios
that could lead to an accident. Contact

can be an unconstrained impact, partially

constrained impact, constrained impact,
clamping in the robot structure or
secondary impact [11].
The
International
Organization
for
Standardization gives in an extensive
classification of hazards based on their
origin. Mechanical vulnerability occur from
unanticipated or unintended activities or
movements,
unintended
release
of
apparatus, rotational motion, trapping of
hair or clothes, becoming trapped inside
the robot compartment, etc. Electrical
vulnerability
comprises
for
instance
contacts with live parts or connections, or
exposure to arc flash. Thermal hazards are
connected with hot surfaces or exposure
to extremely high temperatures required
by an industrial process in progress. Noise
hazards are caused by loss of stability,
disorientation or inability to coordinate
tasks through communication. Some other
common hazards include hazards created
by the use of unsafe equipment, hazards
coming from the dangerous environment
in which robot is used (e.g., when a worker
tries to avoid a sharp edge, or comes in
contact with a hot surface), and a
combination of these factors. Hazards
associated with robots are well recognized
and well predictable, but the sources of
hazards are often unique to a specific
robot system. Not all of the recognized
hazards apply to all robots, nor is the level
of risk associated with a given vulnerable
circumstance is the identical for each
robot. Policy and regulations defined by
standards are thus ambiguous and not
easily applicable. Designing measures that
are robot and context/framework specific
can be a way of ensuring safety in
constrained settings, such as industrial
settings, but it falls short of ensuring
safety in Human Robot Interaction (HRI) in
a generic way. This makes the problem of
ensuring
safety
in
human-robot
interactions difficult [18] [11] .

It is interesting to report an interesting

issue addressed that since people in the
manufacturing environment are often
injured even in the absence of robots,
paradoxically, this provides a motivation
for an increasing use of robots, in well
designed pHRI schemes [14]
IV. SAFETY AND SECURITY STANDARDS IN
HUMANROBOT INTERACTION
Robots designed to help and assist
humans
should
fulfill
different
requirements from those characteristically
met
in
conventional
industrial
applications. Conventional robot systems
and applications entail rapid motions and
total accuracy, without external sensing,
provided
that
the
operational
environments are perfectly known. The
most important change of perspective is
related to the optimality criteria for the
well thought-out manipulators, safety and
dependability are the key factors for direct
contact, and to pave the way to a
successful introduction of robots into
human environments. Physical safety has
to go together with the mental safety as
well like by the understanding the robot
actions, avoiding scaring postures and
rapid movements [14].
The most important example of standard
for robot safety in factories is the
ANSI/RIAR15.06-1999 (American National
Standard for Industrial Robots and Robot
Systems Safety Requirements). This
standard deal with the needs for workers
safety in industrial environments where
robotic manipulators are employed. The
complementary design standard ANSI/UL
1740 states hardware requirements and
specifications harmonized with R15.06: if
the hardware is built in compliance with
UL 1740, the safeguarding requirements in
R15.06 are met. Other standards are
present worldwide, as the European
standard EN 775, and their international
equivalent is the ISO 10218. This standard

has been revised in 2006, while the

modifications are not already effective.
The revised ISO 10218 (Robots for
Industrial Environment - Safety) is a two
part document. Part 1, entitled Design,
Construction and Installation, is intended
to be fully compliant with the European
Machinery Directive and expected to
replace the existing EN775 in due course.
Part 2, work on which has recently begun,
has a working title of Application and Use
of Robots in the Work Place and is
intended to address work place safety
requirements and is directed more to the
end-user than the manufacturer. Most
important changes under consideration
involve control reliability and safeguarding
criteria. Revised standards allow safetyassociated control circuitry to use state-ofthe-art electronic, programmable, and
network based technology, it also includes
wireless technology [14].

V. SAFETY AND SECURITY MEASURES

A. Industrial Robots
More often accidents related to industrial
robots occur when the human worker is
within the work cell and the robot is
functioning. Moreover, incidents can occur
during servicing or programming the
robot. Preferably the robots must be safe
to humans despite the consequences of
failure or a misuse. In actual fact, perfect
safety records in all possible conditions
are not feasible for robots or machines
that have to deliver performance in terms
of welding, cutting, weight lifting and
many more like that A trade-off among
performance and safety is for that reason
much necessary. One of the frequently
practiced safety measures in a robot work
cell is to build a physical safety barrier
around the robot. The main idea behind
building of the barrier is to protect the
work cell against access by human beings,

though the robot is in operation.

Safeguards can be fixed as for instance
the safety fences or they can be movable
like gates or flaps. Physical safeguards are
complemented by non-physical safeguards
like light curtains, scanners and safety
mats [11].
The American National Standards for
safety requirements in industrial robots
explicitly states that the most effective
mean of safeguarding against injury is to
shut the robot system off upon human
entry in the robot work cell [18][11]. A
safety fence typically has one or more
gates through which humans go into the
robot work cell exclusively. An interlock
device is built-in to the gate that can stop
the robot operation if the gate is opened.
Shutting down gate does not recommence
the robot action automatically. The
automatic operation must be commenced
from outside the safeguarded space and it
should just be achievable while all
associated safeguards are active.
Threat to the human workforce can further
be reduced by proper fixing and setting up
of a robot system by building high story
surfaces for wrapping the cables, the
probability of tripping and falling over
them is reduced. Restricted and in service
spaces should be clearly marked. Safe
way should be provided to support
services like electricity, gas and water [15].
Special consideration is desired to be
devoted to the recovery from a failure.
Loss of electricity or other power variation
must not result in a risk or vulnerable
condition. Re-initiation of electricity should
not lead to any movement or activity and
after the recovery robot procedure shall
be re-initiated by hand. Starting and
restarting of the robot system shall be
simple, and should not require significant
safety and defensive measures to be
operational. Location of actuating controls
shall be chosen vigilantly, so as to avoid

unintentional activity [15]. Status of

actuating
controls
shall
be
visibly
indicated for example power on, fault
detected etc. In many cases, teamwork
between human and robot is required. so,
it is not at all times possible to shut down
the robot. A good solution is to equip the
robot with force torque sensor along with a
force-torque
control
technique[16].The
force-torque sensor provides the amount
and direction of the force and the
moment, which is then used to control the
robots movement taking into account its
maximum allowable velocity.
ISO 10218-2 defines that every robot shall
have a protective stop function and an
autonomous emergency stop function [15].
It should be placed at the least distance,
so that the any worker has a quick access
to it. And if some collision occurs the robot
should perform a safety stop task and stay
still until reactivated by a human. In this
manner, the harm it causes will be pulled
down.
Having tactile sensing on parts of the
robot segments that bend or retract would
be more useful, as it may allow to detect if
a human limb got hooked in-between two
retractable parts of the robot.

applied, as it defines joint requirements

between humans and robots.
The
International
Organization
for
Standardization has also devoted a few
working groups to developing standards
for other settings, such as robots in
personal care, mobile service robots and
medical robots[14]. These groups define
and refine the standards of safety and
security time to time.

IV.

The paper as a whole presented the

introduction to robotics and moved to the
topic gradually by introducing the human
robot interaction which included sources
of harms and incidents and types of
injuries to give reader awareness of
human robot issues. The paper define
many standards characterized for safe
human robot interaction in both stable and
mobile robots. From all the above
discussion we can conclude that despite
all the safety measures, mishaps and
accidents can still happen, when least
expected.
The goal of defining the
standards is to define metrics for
expressing the relationship between
safety and productivity.

B. Mobile Robots
Mobile robots are being integrated into the
human environment more rapidly now
days. It is an extremely dynamic
environment,
where
humans
move
unpredictably and carry out their everyday
activities. Mobile robots are meant to help
humans, without putting in danger their
safety and exposing them to any hazard
risk. In general, this holds true, but the
robotic cars show a particular danger due
to their high mass and high energy
movement. There are still no dedicated
standards
defined
for
the
safety
requirements in non-industrial robot
settings. ISO 10218 could partially be

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES
R.Kamal, Embedded Systems: McGrawHill Publication, 2008.
[1]

[2]

Todd D. Morton Mc Graw-Hill, 2008

[3]

Robot Institute of America, 1979

Oxford
Dictionaries
Wikipedia, 4 February 2011.
[4]

Retrieved,

E. Garcia, M. A. Jimenez, P. G. D. Santos,

M. Armada, The Evolution of Robotics
Research: From Industrial Robotics to Field
and Service Robotics, IEEE Robotics and
Automation Magazine, pp.90-103, 2007
[5]

[7] A. Janbaerveldt, Cooperation between

Man and Robot: Interface and Safety, in
proceeding Of IEEE Robot and Human
Communication, 1992, pp. 183 187.

C. Warren Axelrod, Applying Lessons

from Safety-Critical Systems to SecurityCritical Software, Presented at the IEEE
Conf. Of Systems, Applications and
Technology
Conference
(LISAT),
Farmingdale, NY, May 6, 2011.
[8]

A. D. Santis, B. Siciliano, Safety Issues

For
Human-Robot
Cooperation
in
Manufacturing Systems.
[9]

[10] A. Bicchi, M. A. Peshkin, J. E. Colgate,

Safety
for
Physical
HumanRobot
Interaction,
Springer
Handbook
of
Robotics, 2008, pp. 1335-1348.
[11] M. Vasic, A. Billard, Safety Issues in
Human-Robot Interactions, ICRA IEEE,
2013, pp. 197-204.
[12] T. Denning, C. Matuszek, K. Koscher, J.
R. Smith, T.Kohno, A spotlight on security
and
privacy risks with future household robots:
attacks and lessons, in Proceedings of the

11th
International
Conference
on
Ubiquitous Computing, 2009, pp. 105114.
[13] Modeling and Control for Human
Robot Interaction Research Doctorate
Thesis, Advisor: Prof. Bruno Sicilian, 2007.
[14]Safety Issues for Human Robot
Cooperation in manufacturing systems,
Agostino De Santis, Bruno Siciliano, 2008.
[15] ISO, ISO 10218-2:2011: Robots and
robotic devices Safety requirements for
industrial robots Part 2: Robot Systems
and Integration. Geneva, Switzerland:
International
Organization
for
Standardization, 2011.
[16]J. Norberto Pires, John Ramming,
Stephen
Rauch,
Ricardo
Arajo,Force/torque sensing applied to
industrial robotic,2002. deburring, Sensor
Review, Vol. 22 Iss: 3, pp.232 241
[17]Vikram Kapila, Inroduction to Robotics,
Mechatronics,
[18] ISO, ISO 10218-1:2011: Robots and
robotic devices Safety requirements for
industrial robots Part 1: Robots. Geneva,
Switzerland: International Organization for
Standardization, 2011.