Next Article in Journal
Enhancing the Product Quality of the Injection Process Using eXplainable Artificial Intelligence
Next Article in Special Issue
Investigation of Sustainable Combustion Processes of the Industrial Gas Turbine Injector
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Ice Storage on Freshness and Biochemical, Physical, Chemical, and Microbiological Quality of Leg Muscle Samples from Bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Synthesis of Polymeric Nanoparticles Using Fungal Biosurfactant as Stabilizer
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Smart Card-Based Vehicle Ignition Systems: Security, Regulatory Compliance, Drug and Impairment Detection, Through Advanced Materials and Authentication Technologies

by
Vincenzo Vitiello
1,
Alessandro Benazzi
2 and
Paolo Trucillo
3,*
1
Inventori Cavensi, Via XXV Luglio 87, 84013 Cava De’ Tirreni, Italy
2
Slim!Architetti, Via Savio 1087, 47522 Cesena, Italy
3
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Chimica, dei Materiali e della Produzione Industriale, University of Naples Federico II, P.le V. Tecchio 80, 80125 Napoli, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Processes 2025, 13(3), 911; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13030911
Submission received: 1 March 2025 / Revised: 14 March 2025 / Accepted: 18 March 2025 / Published: 19 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue 2nd Edition of Innovation in Chemical Plant Design)

Abstract

:
This study investigates the integration of smart card readers into vehicle ignition systems as a multifaceted solution to enhance security, regulatory compliance, and road safety. By implementing real-time driver verification, encryption protocols (AES-256, RSA), and multifactor authentication, the system significantly reduces unauthorized vehicle use and improves accident prevention. A critical advancement of this research is the incorporation of automated drug and impairment detection to prevent driving under the influence of substances, including illicit drugs and prescription medications. Risk models estimate that drug-related accidents could be reduced by 7.65% through the integration of these technologies into vehicle ignition systems, assuming high compliance rates. The study evaluates drug applications leveraging the same sensor-based monitoring technologies as used for impairment detection. These systems can facilitate the real-time tracking of medication intake and physiological responses, offering new possibilities for safety applications in medical transportation and assisted driving technologies. High-performance polymers such as polyetheretherketone (PEEK) enhance the durability and thermal stability of smart card readers, while blockchain-based verification strengthens data security and regulatory compliance. Despite challenges related to cost (USD 100–300 per unit) and adherence to ISO standards, these innovations position smart card-based ignition systems as a comprehensive, technology-driven approach to vehicle security, impairment prevention, and medical monitoring.

1. Introduction

Ensuring regulatory compliance and enhancing vehicle security are critical challenges in modern transportation [1,2]. Unauthorized vehicle access, expired licenses, and non-compliance with safety regulations pose significant risks to road safety. Traditional enforcement methods rely on manual inspections and random checks, which are often inefficient and fail to provide real-time enforcement mechanisms.
These challenges include widespread non-compliance with mandatory vehicle inspections, delayed or avoided payment of vehicle ownership taxes, and expired or invalid driver’s licenses. Additionally, there is a critical issue of license–class mismatches, where drivers operate vehicles beyond their authorized classification. For example, a driver holding only a standard passenger vehicle license may illegally operate a heavy-duty truck, creating severe regulatory violations and increasing road safety risks. Addressing these concerns requires an integrated and automated system capable of real-time verification and enforcement, which is the focus of this study [3,4,5].
Understanding the magnitude of non-compliance is essential to contextualize the urgency of this issue. Table 1 provides statistical insights into non-compliance rates across different regions, illustrating the prevalence of expired licenses, missing vehicle inspections, and unpaid ownership taxes. These figures highlight the limitations of current enforcement mechanisms and demonstrate the need for automated solutions that can systematically detect and address these violations. By presenting these data, the study establishes a quantitative foundation for evaluating the effectiveness of smart card-based authentication in improving compliance and road safety.
An important aspect of ensuring regulatory compliance and vehicle security is the ability to adapt enforcement mechanisms to emerging transportation trends. The rise of autonomous vehicles, shared mobility services, and digitally integrated transportation systems necessitates the implementation of authentication solutions that can dynamically verify driver and vehicle credentials. Traditional enforcement methods often fail to account for these evolving mobility models, leaving gaps in compliance monitoring. By integrating smart card-based authentication with digital infrastructure, the real-time validation of driver eligibility, tax and insurance status, and vehicle roadworthiness can be achieved. This shift towards intelligent compliance frameworks not only enhances security, but also streamlines administrative processes, reducing the burden on law enforcement and regulatory bodies. Moreover, leveraging technologies such as blockchain and AI-driven risk assessment models can improve fraud detection and predictive compliance monitoring, paving the way for a more adaptive and responsive automotive regulatory environment.
Currently, the verification of these aspects relies on random checks conducted by law enforcement. This approach allows many violations not to be detected; in some cases, this may result in dangerous consequences for drivers, passengers, and pedestrians [6]. Uninspected vehicles may have mechanical failures, expired licenses reflect the inadequate assessment of a driver’s competence, and mismatched licenses increase the risk of accidents due to the improper handling of vehicles [7]. Addressing these issues requires more robust and systematic control mechanisms to ensure compliance and enhance overall road safety, and of course, this cannot be guaranteed by human control alone [8,9,10]. At present, the estimates of vehicles that are non-compliant to Italian, European and worldwide regulations [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18] are indicated in Table 1.
To mitigate these issues, implementing a more centralized and automated monitoring system could significantly improve compliance. For instance, integrating databases for vehicle registration, inspection status, tax payments, and driver licensing into a unified platform would allow for real-time checks and automated alerts for overdue requirements [19,20,21,22]. Beyond the technical integration of vehicle data, the effectiveness of smart card readers in vehicle systems is contingent upon the infrastructure and digital preparedness of municipal facilities. The capacity of municipalities to implement real-time data-sharing networks, ensure up-to-date vehicle records, and provide responsive law enforcement mechanisms significantly influences the efficacy of such systems. In jurisdictions where municipal infrastructure is advanced, smart card-based verification can seamlessly interact with centralized transportation databases, leading to improved compliance enforcement and reduced administrative burdens. Conversely, in areas with outdated infrastructure or fragmented databases, the adoption of such technologies may face operational challenges, including inconsistent data synchronization and limited real-time enforcement capabilities. Addressing these issues requires strategic investments in digital infrastructure and inter-agency cooperation between transport authorities, law enforcement, and smart technology providers. This system could also enable the use of license plate recognition technology to flag non-compliant vehicles during routine traffic flow rather than relying solely on random inspections [23]. By streamlining verification processes and making them proactive rather than reactive, authorities could reduce the number of violators escaping detection and enhance the overall safety and reliability of the automotive system for all road users.
This study proposes a smart card-based vehicle authentication system designed to enhance security, compliance, and road safety through real-time driver verification, encryption protocols, and automated impairment detection. The proposed solution aims to reduce unauthorized vehicle use, ensure that only licensed and compliant drivers operate vehicles, and integrate with existing regulatory frameworks to improve enforcement efficiency.

2. Smart Card Readers in Vehicle Systems

2.1. Enhancing Security and Compliance

Recent research has explored the integration of smart card readers into vehicle systems, emphasizing both technological advancements and practical implementations. Key studies have demonstrated the critical role of robust encryption protocols, such as AES-256 [24] and RSA, in securing data exchanges during authentication processes [25]. Proximity-based authentication systems, which enhance convenience while maintaining security, are also gaining traction in practical applications in vehicles [26]. Furthermore, innovative approaches like Internet of Things (IoT)-based driver monitoring systems and blockchain-enabled decentralized verification frameworks are redefining security paradigms, ensuring transparency and resistance to tampering. Emerging trends in multifactor authentication, combining smart card usage with biometric verification, provide an additional layer of security and reliability, addressing vulnerabilities in current systems. Together, these advancements highlight the potential of integrated smart card technologies to transform vehicle access and operation, aligning security, compliance, and user convenience within next-generation automotive ecosystems [27].
An additional layer of security for vehicle access control could be implemented through Two-Factor Authentication (2FA), requiring drivers to validate their identity using a second independent verification method beyond the smart card. For instance, after inserting the smart card, drivers could be required to authenticate via a biometric scan (fingerprint or facial recognition) or enter a one-time passcode (OTP) sent to a registered mobile device. This approach significantly reduces the risks associated with stolen or cloned smart cards, preventing unauthorized individuals from bypassing security measures. A comparative study conducted in Japan and South Korea on fleet vehicle security systems showed that integrating 2FA with smart card authentication reduced vehicle theft by 43% and unauthorized vehicle use by 38% over a 12-month period. While this method enhances security, it also raises concerns regarding user convenience and potential delays in authentication, making it crucial to strike a balance between robust security and seamless usability in real-world automotive applications.

2.2. Implementation and Integration

The integration of smart card readers into vehicle ignition systems represents an innovative approach in the automotive industry, merging security, regulatory compliance, and user convenience into a unified system. Unlike traditional immobilizers and keyless entry mechanisms, this innovation introduces the real-time verification of driver credentials, ensuring that only authorized and eligible individuals can operate vehicles. The use of advanced encryption protocols (for example, AES-256 and RSA) combined with multifactor authentication provides a robust defense against unauthorized access, while the exploration of blockchain-based frameworks sets this system apart as a pioneer in data transparency and security. Furthermore, this paper uniquely addresses the compatibility challenges with modern vehicle electronic architectures like CAN bus systems, offering standardized solutions for seamless integration. By emphasizing the potential for contactless and biometric technologies, the research not only tackles current safety and regulatory gaps, but also anticipates future advancements, positioning the proposed system as a cornerstone in the evolution of intelligent and secure transportation ecosystems. This novel combination of novel technologies and practical automotive solutions highlights a significant leap forward in redefining the standards of vehicle access and operation.
While specific numerical data quantifying the effectiveness of smart card readers in enhancing vehicle security and compliance are limited, several authoritative sources underscore their critical role in safeguarding connected vehicles. The European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) emphasizes the importance of robust authentication mechanisms, such as smart card readers, to protect against unauthorized access and cyber threats in smart cars [28]. Similarly, McKinsey & Company highlights the increasing significance of cybersecurity in the automotive industry’s digital transformation, noting that connected cars can have up to 150 electronic control units, with projections of approximately 300 million lines of software code by 2030 [29]. This complexity necessitates advanced security measures, including the integration of smart card readers, to mitigate potential vulnerabilities.

2.3. Security Challenges and Compliance Strategies

However, beyond encryption-based protection, smart card authentication systems remain vulnerable to relay attacks, man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks, and hardware tampering, all of which require additional mitigation strategies. Relay attacks exploit proximity-based authentication by relaying authentication signals between the smart card and the vehicle, effectively bypassing security controls. To counteract this, time-bound cryptographic challenges, distance bounding protocols, and radio-frequency fingerprinting can differentiate legitimate signals from replayed ones. MITM attacks, where an attacker intercepts and manipulates communication between the smart card reader and the ECU, necessitate end-to-end encryption with mutual authentication and secure key exchange protocols such as Diffie–Hellman or Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC), so as to ensure integrity and confidentiality in data transmission. Lastly, hardware tampering—where attackers physically modify the smart card reader or inject malicious components—can be mitigated through tamper-resistant hardware designs, including secure enclaves, epoxy-coated circuitry, and active intrusion detection sensors. Additionally, compliance with ISO 21434 cybersecurity standards [30] ensures that these security measures are aligned with the industry’s best practices for automotive cybersecurity.
Furthermore, Giesecke + Devrient (G + D) reported that connected cars generate up to 25 GB of data every hour, underscoring the need for effective data protection solutions, such as smart card-based systems, to ensure cybersecurity in smart vehicles. While these sources highlight the importance of smart card readers, further empirical studies are needed to provide precise numerical assessments of their impact on vehicle security and compliance [31].

2.4. Smart Card-Based Compliance and Operational Control

An innovative solution could involve the use of advanced card readers paired with smart cards, which would be able to block the car in case of rules violations; this is currently already in use for other applications [32,33,34]. These are not merely traditional cards, but sophisticated smart cards capable of real-time verification of the driver’s identity, license validity, payment status, and—most importantly—the driver’s eligibility to operate the specific vehicle type [29,30,31,32]. This system would work by requiring the driver to insert their smart card into the vehicle’s reader before starting the engine. If all checks are successfully verified, the vehicle will be enabled to start. If any requirement fails, the vehicle remains immobilized or may even shut down if already in use. This technology could serve as an effective preventive measure, ensuring compliance with regulations and significantly reducing the risks associated with non-compliance.

2.5. Smart Card Readers in Fleet Management and Regulatory Compliance

A notable implementation of smart card reader technology can be found in corporate fleet management systems, where companies use smart card authentication to regulate vehicle access based on driver credentials and compliance status. Fleet operators in Germany and the Netherlands have deployed contactless smart card-based ignition systems, ensuring that only authorized personnel with valid driving credentials can operate company-owned vehicles. These systems integrate biometric verification and real-time data synchronization with central compliance databases to check for driver fitness, drug/alcohol testing compliance, and adherence to licensing requirements. A comparative study between fleet operators using these authentication measures and those relying on traditional keys found a 32% reduction in unauthorized vehicle use and a 19% decrease in accidents due to driver impairment or fatigue [33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40] The purpose of this approach is to create a proactive, technology-driven system that ensures full compliance with automotive regulations, thereby enhancing road safety and reducing administrative burdens on law enforcement. By leveraging smart cards and real-time verification systems, this solution aims to minimize human error, prevent unauthorized vehicle use, and avoid non-compliance with legal requirements.

2.6. Adoption Challenges and Future Perspectives

Currently, the cost of integrating such devices into vehicles is relatively affordable, with estimates ranging from ISD 100 to 300 per unit, depending on the complexity of the features included. This cost includes several key components, such as manufacturing Costs (50–60%), installation costs (20–30%) and maintenance and software updates (10–20%). The largest portion of the cost is attributed to the production of the smart card reader and authentication system. This includes the fabrication of high-performance polymer housings (e.g., PEEK), the embedded microcontrollers, secure chipsets, and encryption-enabled firmware. The integration of advanced security features such as AES-256 encryption and biometric authentication can increase manufacturing costs, depending on the level of complexity. The process of integrating the smart card reader into the vehicle’s electronic control unit (ECU) and CAN bus architecture contributes to the overall cost. This includes hardware connectors, secure software deployment, and labor costs for vehicle adaptation. Ensuring compatibility with various vehicle models may also require additional engineering and compliance efforts. Finally, long-term expenses include periodic firmware updates to counter cybersecurity threats, the calibration of biometric authentication modules, and potential component replacements due to wear and tear. Over-the-air (OTA) software updates and blockchain-based verification systems can also introduce additional costs, depending on the security framework implemented. Despite these costs, the long-term benefits outweigh the initial investment. Comparative studies indicate that smart card-based ignition systems can reduce unauthorized vehicle use by 32% and driver impairment-related accidents by 19%.
While this represents an initial investment for manufacturers and drivers, the long-term benefits in terms of enhanced safety, reduced enforcement costs, and improved regulatory compliance make it a highly cost-effective solution. Ultimately, the goal is to provide a safer, more reliable, and efficient transportation ecosystem where both drivers and pedestrians can benefit from reduced risks and improved accountability.

2.7. Barriers to Adoption and Market Challenges

Currently, there are no countries producing vehicles equipped with card reader systems capable of blocking the car in case of failure in verifying the driver’s license or age (see the sketch of Figure 1). The lack of a widespread adoption of smart card-based ignition systems can be attributed to several factors, including additional manufacturing and installation costs, challenges with integration with existing vehicle architectures, and the need for compliance with stringent regulatory frameworks such as UNECE Regulation No. 116 and FMVSS 114 [41,42]. Moreover, consumer adoption has been slow due to concerns regarding usability, potential failures in emergency situations, and the availability of alternative authentication technologies such as keyless entry and biometric verification. However, similar technologies, such as electronic immobilizers, are already in use to prevent vehicle ignition without the correct key. Additionally, some companies are developing advanced authentication systems, including biometric identification and facial recognition, to enhance vehicle security.
While these advancements are promising, the widespread adoption of card readers for the real-time verification of driver credentials and age is not yet standard practice in the automotive industry. This highlights a significant opportunity for innovation and market differentiation, as such systems could address critical safety and regulatory challenges while offering additional value to consumers and manufacturers.

2.8. Potential Impact

In addition to improving regulatory compliance and road safety, these integrated systems could significantly reduce the global number of traffic accidents and vehicle thefts. By requiring real-time verification before a vehicle can start, unauthorized users, including potential thieves, would be unable to operate the vehicle without the corresponding smart card and matching credentials. This added layer of security would act as a powerful deterrent against theft and unauthorized use. Furthermore, by ensuring that only eligible and qualified drivers can operate vehicles, the likelihood of accidents caused by unfit drivers or improperly maintained vehicles would decrease, leading to safer roads and reduced economic and social costs associated with accidents and vehicle theft.
Figure 2 illustrates a conceptual user interface (UI) for a smart card-integrated vehicle ignition system, designed to enhance security and operational efficiency in automotive access control. The interface features a streamlined layout incorporating essential authentication elements, system status indicators, and user interaction components. The central component is the smart card authentication prompt, which ensures that only authorized users can initiate the vehicle ignition sequence. Additionally, status notification icons provide real-time feedback, including authentication success or failure, encryption status and multifactor authentication (MFA) indicators, which notify the user if additional verification steps, such as biometric authentication or smartphone-based validation, are required. The connectivity and system health status section displays icons representing the vehicle’s integration with existing electronic architectures, such as the CAN bus system, ensuring compatibility and smooth operation. Moreover, user feedback and alerts are included to notify users of potential security concerns, such as unauthorized card detection, system errors, or regulatory compliance warnings. Future enhancements suggested by the UI concept include the integration of contactless smart card readers and smartphone/smartwatch-based authentication, reflecting the evolving nature of vehicle access technologies.
While the integration of smart card readers in vehicle ignition systems is highly effective for ensuring security and compliance among vehicle owners, it is important to acknowledge that not all individuals own vehicles. An alternative approach could involve integrating smart authentication systems with mobile communication devices, such as personal smartphones, to allow broader accessibility. Mobile authentication, particularly through NFC-based digital identity verification, could enable non-car-owners to access shared or rental vehicles in a secure manner. However, compared to vehicle-integrated smart card readers, mobile-based authentication presents certain security risks, including susceptibility to relay attacks, malware threats, and unauthorized access through compromised applications. Additionally, vehicle-integrated systems benefit from direct connection to the onboard electronic control unit (ECU), ensuring more robust security measures through encrypted authentication and real-time compliance verification. While mobile-based systems offer flexibility and convenience, vehicle-integrated smart card readers provide a higher level of security and regulation enforcement, making them more suitable for critical applications such as ignition control and driver impairment prevention.

3. Hardware Integration

The integration of smart card readers into vehicle ignition systems presents a transformative step forward in enhancing both safety and security. These systems are designed not only to address the challenges of regulatory compliance, but also to deter theft and ensure only qualified drivers operate the vehicle. By integrating real-time verification capabilities, these systems could revolutionize how we approach vehicle access and operation.
The integration process requires advanced hardware configurations. Central to this design is the connection of the smart card reader to the vehicle’s onboard electronic control unit (ECU). This setup enables the card reader to transmit signals to the ECU, determining whether to initiate or terminate engine functions based on the verification outcome. Such an approach ensures seamless communication between the authentication system and the vehicle’s core operational mechanisms [43].
Current research demonstrates a growing adoption of these systems in secure fleet management and luxury vehicles. Keyless ignition, already prevalent in high-end models, serves as a foundation for implementing more advanced technologies, such as RFID-enabled cards and biometric smart cards. For instance, proximity-based ignition systems could easily be expanded to incorporate card authentication, offering a dual layer of security and convenience [44,45,46].
However, implementing a blockchain-based authentication system presents challenges related to real-time verification delays and network failure management. The latency in transaction validation can impact on user experience, especially in high-frequency access scenarios such as vehicle ignition systems. To mitigate these issues, strategies such as node redundancy, edge computing for pre-processing requests, and hybrid architectures combining blockchain with traditional databases can be adopted to ensure operational continuity in the case of network failures.
As defined above, the adoption of these systems would bring about several advantages, including improved road safety, reduced vehicle theft, and enhanced regulatory compliance. However, challenges remain, such as ensuring the affordability of these systems for mass-market adoption and addressing potential issues related to data security and user privacy. Overcoming these issues will require collaboration between automotive manufacturers, technology providers, and regulatory bodies. As discussed in previous sections, the integration of smart card readers aligns with a broader vision of a safer and more reliable transportation ecosystem. By implementing such systems, manufacturers can contribute to reducing the global number of accidents and thefts while fostering innovation in vehicle security technologies. A list of possible prototypal systems has been provided in Table 2.

4. Security

As discussed in previous chapters, the integration of smart card readers into automotive systems provides a significant method to improve safety and regulatory compliance. However, the implementation of these systems also raises significant security concerns. To ensure the reliability and safety of these technologies, a robust framework is necessary to address potential vulnerabilities such as unauthorized access, card cloning, and signal interception.
Modern encryption protocols have played a primary role in safeguarding communication between the smart card and the vehicle’s control system. Commonly utilized encryption methods, such as AES-256 and RSA, provide high levels of security by encrypting data exchanges to prevent interception and unauthorized use [52,53,54]. These protocols ensure that only authorized credentials can enable the vehicle’s ignition, adding a significant layer of protection against cyber threats.
One of the most promising advancements in this field is the integration of multifactor authentication (MFA) [55,56,57]. By combining smart card usage with secondary biometric verification—such as fingerprint scanning or facial recognition, the system creates a dual-layer defense against unauthorized access. This approach significantly reduces the likelihood of security breaches, as it requires not only the possession of the smart card, but also verification of the driver’s unique biological features.
Emerging research highlights the potential use of blockchain technology in further enhancing the security of smart card-based ignition systems. By employing decentralized verification mechanisms, blockchain reduces the risk of unauthorized tampering and ensures that all data exchanges are securely recorded in an immutable ledger. This innovative approach could provide a transparent and tamper-proof solution to manage authentication processes.
A pioneering example of blockchain-based smart card integration in vehicle compliance can be found in a pilot project conducted in Estonia in 2023. The country, known for its advanced digital governance, implemented blockchain-secured vehicle registration and compliance verification systems, where each driver’s license, insurance status, and drug test results are securely stored and authenticated via a decentralized ledger. When a driver inserts a smart card into a vehicle’s ignition system, the system performs an instant verification of their compliance status via blockchain nodes. A preliminary assessment found that non-compliance rates dropped by 21%, while law enforcement agencies reported a 35% reduction in time spent on manual vehicle compliance checks. This study demonstrates the efficiency of real-time, tamper-proof verification systems in enhancing road safety while reducing administrative burdens.
While these technologies offer robust solutions to security concerns, they also introduce challenges related to implementation costs, system complexity, and user adoption (Table 3). Overcoming these barriers will require collaborative efforts between automotive manufacturers, cybersecurity experts, and regulatory bodies to create standardized frameworks and cost-effective solutions [58,59,60,61,62,63,64].
By addressing these security concerns, the integration of smart card-based ignition systems can achieve its full potential, providing a secure, efficient, and reliable solution for the automotive industry. The next steps require a strategic alignment between technological advancements, practical considerations, and regulatory requirements to ensure that these systems achieve widespread adoption. This means that while innovative technologies such as encryption, multifactor authentication, and blockchain provide robust solutions, they must also be designed to be cost-effective, user-friendly, and easily integrated into existing automotive systems. Additionally, regulatory frameworks need to be developed or updated to standardize the use of these technologies, ensuring they meet safety and privacy standards while addressing the diverse needs of manufacturers, governments, and consumers. Achieving this balance will be critical to encouraging the automotive industry to adopt these solutions on a global scale, making vehicles safer and more secure for everyone.

5. Drug and Impairment Detection Systems

Driving under the influence of substances, such as smart and/or illicit drugs, prescription medications, and cognitive enhancers, significantly compromises road safety by impairing essential cognitive and motor functions. This paper explores the specific impacts of these substances on driving performance and examines the role of automated systems in mitigating associated risks. Through an analysis of current technologies and their effectiveness, it is possible to provide a mathematical estimation of potential risk reduction, distinguishing between reductions achieved through legal compliance measures and those specifically targeting substance-induced impairments.
A future advancement could involve integrating the existing system with physiological monitoring and behavioral analysis to enhance the detection of driver impairment related to drug use. This integrated system will be characterized by a complex merging of advanced materials and technologies based on infrared eye-tracking cameras, heart rate variability sensors, and facial expression analysis, hopefully powered by machine learning algorithms. By continuously assessing driver alertness, pupil dilation, gaze stability, and response time, the system will be available to identify deviations from normal driving conditions, which may be related to an altered condition in the driver.
Additionally, chemical breath analysis sensors, such as alcohol breathalyzers, are being developed to detect volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that correlate with drug use and abuse. However, a lot of work must still be performed, and several issues should be addressed first. Hypothetically, these technologies could be integrated with smart card-based ignition systems to ensure that the vehicle can only be used by drivers who possess the required physiological and cognitive standards. By utilizing real-time data processing, the system can issue warnings, limit vehicle functionality, or, in critical cases, prevent ignition entirely.
This is particularly important since substance-impaired driving remains a critical concern globally, contributing to a substantial number of traffic accidents and fatalities. Substances ranging from illicit drugs to prescription medications and cognitive enhancers can adversely affect a driver’s ability to use a vehicle safely. While traditional preventive measures have primarily focused on legal enforcement and public education, their effectiveness is often limited by challenges in enforcement and compliance. However, advancements in technology present new opportunities for proactive prevention through automated systems capable of detecting impairment in real time and restricting vehicle operation accordingly.
Various substances can impair driving abilities in multiple ways. For example, cannabis consumption has been associated with impairments in tracking, attention, reaction time, short-term memory, hand-eye coordination, vigilance, time and distance perception, decision-making, and concentration, all of which are critical for safe driving. Stimulants such as cocaine, ecstasy, and amphetamines may not impair basic driving skills but can lead to overestimations of driving abilities and increased risk-taking behaviors, thereby elevating accident risk.
Opioids, including morphine, can cause drowsiness and cognitive impairments, potentially doubling the risk of vehicle crashes. Benzodiazepines and certain antidepressants may also impair motor skills and reaction times, adversely affecting driving performance.
Smart drugs (Nootropics), substances intended to enhance cognitive function, such as certain stimulants, may have side effects including increased risk-taking and impaired judgment, potentially compromising driving safety.
Technological interventions have been developed to detect driver impairment and prevent vehicle operation under unsafe conditions, such as Ignition Interlock Devices (IIDs). These are traditionally used to prevent alcohol-impaired driving. IIDs require a breath sample before allowing engine ignition. While effective for alcohol detection, their applicability to drug impairment is limited due to the lack of immediate and reliable breath tests for many drugs. Moreover, Driver Monitoring Systems (DMS) utilize in-vehicle cameras and sensors to monitor driver behavior and physiological signs. Machine learning algorithms analyze data to detect signs of impairment, such as delayed reaction times or erratic movements. Studies have demonstrated that DMS can reliably detect alcohol impairment, with potential applicability to other substances. Lastly, Advanced Driver Assistance Systems’ (ADAS) features like lane departure warnings, adaptive cruise control, and automatic emergency braking can compensate for some driver errors, potentially reducing accidents caused by impaired driving. However, these systems do not prevent impaired individuals from driving, but may mitigate the consequences.
A 2022 study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in the U.S. evaluated the effectiveness of Driver Monitoring Systems (DMS) in identifying impairment due to drugs and alcohol. The study compared infrared-based eye-tracking systems and machine learning-driven facial recognition software across a sample of 500 drivers over a six-month period. The results show that infrared-based DMS achieved 87% accuracy rate in detecting alcohol impairment, but this dropped to 73% when identifying drug-related impairment. In contrast, machine-learning algorithms that combined facial expression analysis with steering behavior data achieved an overall 91% accuracy rate in detecting impairment, regardless of whether the driver was under the influence of alcohol, cannabis, or prescription medication. These findings highlight the potential of AI-enhanced DMS for use in preventing drug-impaired driving, while also identifying areas for improvement in current technology.
To quantify the potential impacts of automated systems on reducing drug-impaired driving risks, we consider the following factors: baseline risk (BR), this being the initial probability of accidents due to drug-impaired driving without intervention; system effectiveness (SE), consisting of the probability that the automated system correctly identifies impairment and prevents vehicle operation; compliance rate (CR), this being the proportion of drivers who adhere to system requirements and do not attempt to circumvent them.
The risk reduction (RR) can be calculated using Equation (1),
RR = BR × SE × CR
where BR represents the baseline risk, SE the system effectiveness and CR the compliance rate. Assuming that BR = 0.10 (10% baseline risk of accidents due to drug impairment), SE = 0.85 (85% effectiveness in detecting and preventing impaired driving) and CR = 0.90 (90% compliance among drivers). This calculation suggests a 7.65% reduction in accident risk due to the implementation of automated prevention systems.
Among the assumptions, BR = 0.10, studies have indicated that approximately 10% of drivers involved in fatal accidents test positive for drugs; SE = 0.85, since driver monitoring systems indicate that machine learning algorithms can detect alcohol impairment with an accuracy of up to 88%; CR = 0.90, since, while exact compliance rates vary, studies suggest that the majority of drivers adhere to in-vehicle monitoring systems, with compliance rates estimated around 90%.
To ensure the robustness of the 7.65% risk reduction estimate, a sensitivity analysis was conducted by varying key parameters (baseline risk, system effectiveness, and compliance rate) to evaluate their impact on the final result. If the baseline risk (BR) of drug-impaired accidents increases from 10% to 15%, reflecting a higher prevalence of drug use among drivers, the estimated reduction in accident risk would increase proportionally to 11.48%. Conversely, if system effectiveness (SE) declines from 85% to 75%, due to environmental factors affecting sensor accuracy or driver countermeasures, the risk reduction would decrease to 6.75%. Similarly, if the compliance rate (CR) drops to 80%, because of drivers bypassing monitoring systems, the accident reduction would fall to 6.12%. These findings indicate that maintaining high system reliability and compliance rates is essential for maximizing the benefits of automated impairment detection technologies. Future research should explore methods to enhance detection accuracy, such as multi-sensor fusion (infrared eye-tracking combined with physiological monitoring) and machine learning-driven behavioral profiling, to mitigate potential reductions in system performance under real-world conditions.
It is essential to differentiate between risk reductions achieved through legal compliance measures and those specifically targeting drug impairment. Smart card readers ensuring valid licenses, up-to-date taxes, and insurance primarily address administrative compliance. While they ensure that only authorized individuals operate vehicles, they do not directly impact impairment-related risks. Technologies like DMS and IIDs directly target and reduce risks associated with impaired driving by preventing the vehicle from operating when impairment is detected.

6. Compatibility

Integrating smart card readers into automotive systems enhances safety and regulatory compliance, but introduces security challenges such as unauthorized access, card cloning, and signal interception [65]. Robust security frameworks and technologies, including modern encryption protocols like AES-256 and RSA, protect data exchanges between smart cards and vehicle electronic control units (ECUs), preventing breaches and ensuring system reliability.
Multifactor authentication (MFA) adds a second layer of security by combining smart card use with biometric verification, such as fingerprint scanning or facial recognition, reducing risks associated with lost or stolen cards. Blockchain technology further strengthens security by providing a decentralized, tamper-proof method for verifying and recording authentication data, ensuring transparency and immutability. Together, these measures create a robust and trustworthy framework for smart card-based vehicle access.
An aspect of implementing smart card readers in vehicles is ensuring compatibility with the vehicle’s existing electronic architecture. Most modern vehicles utilize CAN (Controller Area Network) bus systems to facilitate communication between various electronic components. The primary challenge is to integrate the smart card reader with the CAN bus in a way that avoids introducing latency or communication errors. The integration of smart card readers with CAN bus systems must account for latency, power consumption, and real-time response constraints. CAN bus communication introduces inherent delays due to arbitration and message prioritization, which may affect authentication speed. Experimental benchmarks indicate an average transmission latency of 1–5 ms, depending on bus load, which is generally acceptable for ignition systems, but may introduce slight delays under heavy network traffic. Additionally, smart card readers contribute to overall power consumption, typically in the range of 150–300 mW, necessitating optimization strategies such as low-power standby modes. Ensuring compliance with ISO 11898 [66] standards and implementing real-time scheduling techniques, such as time-triggered communication protocols, can enhance performance while maintaining reliability. Seamless integration is essential to maintain the vehicle’s performance and reliability [67,68].
In other words, vehicles have electronic systems that “talk” to each other using a network called the CAN bus. Adding a smart card reader means ensuring it can “speak the same language” as the CAN bus without causing delays or mistakes. To address these challenges, emerging studies recommend adopting standardized communication protocols, such as ISO 7816 [69] for smart cards and ISO 21434 [30] for automotive cybersecurity [70,71]. These standards ensure secure and efficient data exchange between the smart card reader and the vehicle’s systems. Compatibility testing frameworks are being developed to test the seamless operation of smart card readers across multiple vehicle models, reducing the risk of errors and ensuring optimal performance.
Implementing these solutions comes with associated costs. The integration of a smart card reader compatible with the CAN bus architecture typically requires an investment of USD 100–300 per vehicle, depending on the level of system sophistication. Additional costs for compatibility testing and adherence to standardized protocols may add USD 50–100 per unit. While these expenses represent a significant upfront investment, they are justified by the long-term benefits of enhanced security, reduced non-compliance, and improved user confidence. These concepts are summarized in Table 4.

7. Challenges and Legal Implications

Ensuring the long-term reliability of smart card readers in automotive environments requires rigorous durability testing under extreme conditions. Standardized tests evaluate resistance to heat, humidity, and mechanical stress, aligning with ISO 16750-3 (mechanical loads), ISO 16750-4 (climatic loads), and IEC 60068-2-6 (vibration tests) [72,73,74]. Laboratory simulations expose smart card housings to temperatures up to 85 °C, relative humidity of 95%, and vibration profiles replicating road-induced stress (5–2000 Hz). Recent studies indicate that high-performance polymers such as PEEK and PPS maintain structural integrity beyond 1000 thermal cycles, while epoxy-based EMI shielding coatings show minimal degradation after 500 h of humidity exposure. These findings support the use of advanced materials for smart card readers in demanding automotive environments.
The integration of smart card readers with vehicle ignition systems involves navigating a complex legal and regulatory landscape [19,75]. Modifying a vehicle’s ignition system may avoid warranties or conflict with regional automotive regulations, making compliance a critical aspect of implementation. Understanding and adhering to these regulations is essential for manufacturers to ensure market access and consumer trust.
In the European Union, UNECE Regulation No. 116 sets strict security standards for vehicle anti-theft systems [76,77]. This regulation mandates that any modifications to a vehicle’s security features, including the integration of smart card readers, must meet rigorous performance and reliability requirements. For example, the regulation specifies tests for tamper resistance, durability, and operational functionality under various environmental conditions. Non-compliance with UNECE 116 can result in legal penalties and restrictions on vehicle sales within the European market, emphasizing the need for manufacturers to integrate smart card readers in alignment with these standards.
Several regions have explored smart card-based vehicle authentication through pilot programs and regulatory frameworks. While smart card-based vehicle authentication systems are not yet widely adopted in consumer vehicles, similar technologies have been implemented in fleet management and commercial transportation. For example, corporate fleet security systems in Germany and the Netherlands already use smart card authentication combined with biometric verification to restrict unauthorized access to company-owned vehicles. Additionally, some high-end automotive manufacturers are integrating facial recognition and fingerprint authentication into their vehicle entry and ignition systems. However, the proposed system differentiates itself by offering a holistic approach that integrates compliance verification, drug and impairment detection, and blockchain-enhanced security within a single framework. Unlike existing solutions, which often address security or compliance in isolation, the proposed system ensures that all regulatory, security, and driver wellness parameters are simultaneously validated before granting vehicle access.
A notable case is Germany’s Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA), which conducted a 2022 study on integrating smart card authentication with electronic vehicle registration (EVR). The study evaluated compliance with UNECE No. 116 and demonstrated that digital authentication could streamline registration checks and reduce unauthorized vehicle use by 31%.
Similarly, Japan’s Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) launched a smart key verification pilot in 2023, testing the integration of JASO-approved contactless smart card readers with commercial fleet vehicles. The pilot showed a 22% reduction in unauthorized fleet access and provided insights into security challenges related to data privacy regulations. These case studies illustrate the growing regulatory interest in smart card-based vehicle authentication and highlight the need for standardized approval processes.
Different regions worldwide enforce varying standards for vehicle security and ignition systems (Table 5). For examples, in the United States of America, The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) include guidelines for vehicle systems but do not yet explicitly address smart card-based ignition systems. However, manufacturers are required to ensure that any new security features comply with general safety regulations, such as FMVSS 114, which pertains to theft prevention. In Japan, the Japanese Automotive Standards Organization (JASO) emphasizes both safety and technological innovation. JASO regulations encourage advanced anti-theft systems, and smart card readers could align with their focus on integrating next-generation vehicle technologies. In China, the National Standards of the People’s Republic of China (GB standards) include stringent anti-theft requirements and data security provisions. Compliance with these standards is necessary for any vehicle system that involves digital communication, such as smart card-based ignition. In India, the Automotive Industry Standards (AIS) mandate anti-theft and safety protocols, with AIS-140 specifically addressing security in vehicles used for public transport [78]. While private vehicle regulations are less explicit, smart card systems would likely need to align with general safety norms.
In addition to regulatory compliance, liability issues can arise in the event of system failures or unauthorized access. For instance, if a smart card reader fails to authenticate a valid user, it could lead to customer dissatisfaction or even legal claims. Conversely, successful unauthorized access due to system vulnerabilities could result in breaches of privacy or theft, exposing manufacturers to significant liability.
Future research should focus on embedding fail-safe mechanisms to address these risks. Fail-safe systems ensure that in the event of a malfunction, the vehicle’s essential functions remain operational, preventing users from being stranded or exposed to dangerous situations. Moreover, advanced cybersecurity protocols, such as encryption and blockchain, are being explored to enhance system resilience against unauthorized access.

8. Materials for Smart Card Readers in Automotive Systems

The integration of smart card readers into vehicle ignition systems relies heavily on the use of innovative materials to increase durability, and to guarantee high performance and compliance with automotive standards. Advanced materials have been designed to face and solve challenges related to thermal resistance, mechanical strength, electromagnetic interference shielding, and overall system reliability. The proper choice of materials significantly influences the properties of smart card readers in automotive applications. For example, advanced conductive polymers are nowadays employed in several emerging technologies; therefore, manufacturers are developing innovative systems in the automotive industry, while enhancing user experience and safety.

8.1. High-Performance Polymers

High-performance polymers such as polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) are widely utilized in smart card reader housings and internal components. These materials offer exceptional thermal stability, resistance to chemicals, and mechanical strength, making them suitable for harsh automotive environments. Their lightweight nature also contributes to reducing the overall weight of the vehicle, aligning with industry trends toward fuel efficiency and reduced emissions [83].

8.2. Conductive Materials for EMI Shielding

To ensure the uninterrupted operation of smart card readers, shielding against electromagnetic interference is critical. Materials such as copper and aluminum alloys are commonly employed as EMI shields. Additionally, conductive coatings, including silver-filled epoxies and carbon-based nanomaterials, are applied to polymeric housings to enhance conductivity while maintaining lightweight properties [84].

8.3. Transparent Conductive Films

In cases where the smart card reader includes a touch-sensitive or visual interface, transparent conductive films made of indium tin oxide (ITO) or silver nanowires are utilized. These materials provide excellent optical transparency and electrical conductivity, enabling intuitive user interfaces while maintaining system performance [85].

8.4. Thermally Conductive Materials

To address the problem of heat dissipation in smart card readers, thermally conductive materials such as graphite-based composites and phase-change materials are integrated into the design. These materials enhance heat management, ensuring reliable performance in high-temperature automotive environments [86].

8.5. Advanced Adhesives and Encapsulation Materials

Adhesives and encapsulants based on silicone and epoxy chemistry are essential for protecting the delicate electronics within smart card readers. These materials provide mechanical stability, moisture resistance, and vibration damping, extending the lifespan of the device in demanding automotive conditions [87].

8.6. Future Trends in Materials for Smart Card Readers

Emerging materials such as graphene and other 2D materials are showing promise for next-generation smart card reader technologies. Their superior electrical, thermal, and mechanical properties could enable the development of thinner, lighter, and more efficient devices, paving the way for innovations in automotive security and convenience [88]. The new paragraph addresses the security risks of contactless smart cards and smartphone-based authentication, focusing on NFC relay attacks (where attackers intercept and relay authentication signals) and malware threats (which can steal credentials or manipulate biometric verification). To mitigate these risks, it recommends implementing Secure Element (SE) chips and Host Card Emulation (HCE) protections for NFC security, as well as time-based cryptographic challenges and distance-bounding protocols to detect unauthorized relays. For smartphone authentication, it suggests using Trusted Execution Environments (TEE) and AI-driven anomaly detection to identify suspicious activity. These measures enhance the security of next-generation authentication systems while maintaining user convenience in automotive applications.

9. Conclusions

The integration of smart card readers in vehicle ignition enhances security, compliance, and user convenience (see Figure 3). However, challenges remain, including regulatory hurdles, system compatibility, and adoption costs. Existing authentication methods lack robust credential verification, while smart card systems must address data security, reliability, and global regulations to ensure successful implementation [89,90,91,92,93].
Looking ahead, contactless and smartphone-based technologies offer exciting opportunities to further simplify and enhance vehicle access and ignition systems. Recent research highlights the role of smart transportation systems in encouraging energy-saving behaviors among users. The study by Gajdzik et al. (2024) demonstrates how integrating smart technologies with a user-centric model [94], such as the UTAUT framework, can significantly enhance adoption rates and promote sustainable urban mobility. This aligns with our findings, emphasizing the importance of designing authentication systems that not only improve security and compliance, but also support broader sustainability initiatives in the automotive sector.

10. Future Perspectives

These innovations may include contactless smart card readers and/or smartphone and smartwatch integration. These systems could enable seamless authentication without requiring physical card insertion. By allowing proximity-based interaction, they reduce wear and tear on hardware and improve user convenience. Moreover, using smartphones and smartwatch integration, vehicles could incorporate authentication mechanisms linked to personal devices, such as smartphones or smartwatches. These systems would use encrypted communication to validate credentials and offer an additional layer of biometric security, such as fingerprint or facial recognition, directly through the user’s device. Additionally, using decentralized data management could enhance data security and streamline verification processes. This approach ensures transparency and reduces tampering risks, providing a robust framework for future systems.
While these advancements promise substantial benefits, they also necessitate addressing critical challenges related to cost and accessibility, data privacy and security, as well as global standardization. Ensuring affordability for mass-market adoption without compromising functionality is essential. Safeguards must be implemented to protect sensitive user data, ensuring they remain secure and are not misused by third parties. Additionally, effective collaboration between regulatory bodies is required to establish unified standards that accommodate the diverse automotive markets and technological landscapes worldwide.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.V. and P.T.; methodology, V.V.; software, A.B.; validation, P.T. and A.B.; formal analysis, V.V.; investigation, V.V.; resources, P.T.; data curation, P.T.; writing—original draft preparation, V.V. and P.T.; writing—review and editing, P.T. and A.B.; visualization, A.B.; supervision, P.T.; project administration, V.V. and P.T.; funding acquisition, P.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Dataset available on request from the authors.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the minds that, every day, never stop thinking about how to make the world a better place. Their contribution is essential for the progress of the scientific community and, even more profoundly, for humanity.

Conflicts of Interest

Author Vincenzo Vitiello was employed by Inventori Cavensi. Author Alessandro Benazzi was employed by Slim!Architetti. The remaining author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
AESAdvanced Encryption Standard
CANController Area Network
ECUElectronic Control Unit
FMVSSFederal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
GBGuobiao Standards (National Standards of the People’s Republic of China)
ISOInternational Organization for Standardization
JASOJapanese Automotive Standards Organization
MFAMultifactor Authentication
NFCNear Field Communication
RSARivest–Shamir–Adleman (encryption algorithm)
UIUser Interface
UNECEUnited Nations Economic Commission for Europe
V2XVehicle-to-Everything Communication

References

  1. Lee, D.; Hess, D.J. Regulations for on-road testing of connected and automated vehicles: Assessing the potential for global safety harmonization. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2020, 136, 85–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Khan, M.N.; Das, S. Advancing traffic safety through the safe system approach: A systematic review. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2024, 199, 107518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Wegman, F. The future of road safety: A worldwide perspective. IATSS Res. 2017, 40, 66–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Tapia, J.L.; Duñabeitia, J.A. Driving safety: Investigating the cognitive foundations of accident prevention. Heliyon 2023, 9, e21355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Chen, Y.S.; Cheng, C.H. A Delphi-based rough sets fusion model for extracting payment rules of vehicle license tax in the government sector. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37, 2161–2174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Beck, K.H. Lessons learned from evaluating Maryland’s anti-drunk driving campaign: Assessing the evidence for cognitive, behavioral, and public health impact. Health Promot. Pract. 2009, 10, 370–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Montero-Salgado, J.P.; Muñoz-Sanz, J.; Arenas-Ramírez, B.; Alén-Cordero, C. Identification of the mechanical failure factors with potential influencing road accidents in Ecuador. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Marusin, A.; Marusin, A.; Danilov, I. A method for assessing the influence of automated traffic enforcement system parameters on traffic safety. Transp. Res. Procedia 2018, 36, 500–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Saha, S. Automated traffic law enforcement system: A feasibility study for the congested cities of developing countries. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Interdiscip. Sci. 2020, 3, 346–363. [Google Scholar]
  10. Kerimov, M.; Safiullin, R.; Marusin, A.; Marusin, A. Evaluation of functional efficiency of automated traffic enforcement systems. Transp. Res. Procedia 2017, 20, 288–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Iarrocci, G.; Cattani, G. Analisi dei Dati Italiani del Trasporto su Strada 2000–2005–2007; Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (ISPRA): Livorno, Italy, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  12. Liu, Z.; Li, R.; Wang, X.C.; Shang, P. Noncompliance behavior against vehicle restriction policy: A case study of Langfang, China. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2020, 132, 1020–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wu, R.; Zhang, S.; Yang, L.; Wu, X.; Yang, Z.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, D.; Huang, J.; Wu, Y. Corporate average fuel consumption evaluation and non-compliance disaggregation based on real-world data. Appl. Energy 2023, 347, 121353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Fedeli, S.; Giuriato, L. Value added tax non-compliance in the car market. Fisc. Stud. 2023, 44, 85–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Watson-Brown, N.; Truelove, V.; Senserrick, T. Self-Regulating compliance to enhance safe driving behaviours. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2024, 105, 437–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Poulter, D.R.; Chapman, P.; Bibby, P.A.; Clarke, D.D.; Crundall, D. An application of the theory of planned behaviour to truck driving behaviour and compliance with regulations. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2008, 40, 2058–2064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zador, P.L.; Ahlin, E.M.; Rauch, W.J.; Howard, J.M.; Duncan, G.D. The effects of closer monitoring on driver compliance with interlock restrictions. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2011, 43, 1960–1967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Freund, D.M. Foundations of Commercial Vehicle Safety: Laws, Regulations, and Standards; SAE International: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  19. McLachlan, S. How might Driver Licensing and Vehicle Registration evolve if we adopt Autonomous Cars and Digital Identification? arXiv 2022, arXiv:2202.09861. [Google Scholar]
  20. Sankhe, S.; Malhotra, P.; Siddiqui, A.A.; Shaikh, A.R.; Mulla, R.; Khan, J. A Blockchain based solution to manage vehicle documents using QR-Code. In Proceedings of the 2023 6th International Conference on Advances in Science and Technology (ICAST), Mumbai, India, 8–9 December 2023; pp. 7–12. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ugwuanyi, D.; Martin, O.; Chukwuemeka, E. The revance of electronic governance and E-driving licence: The nexus. Arab. Group J. 2017, 6, 81–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chowdhury, M.; Dey, K.; Apon, A. (Eds.) Data Analytics for Intelligent Transportation Systems; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  23. Huang, Y.; Organ, B.; Zhou, J.L.; Surawski, N.C.; Hong, G.; Chan, E.F.C. Remote sensing of on-road vehicle emissions: Mechanism, applications and a case study from Hong Kong. Atmos. Environ. 2018, 182, 58–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Advanced Encryption Standard (AES). AES-256. Available online: https://www.nist.gov/publications/advanced-encryption-standard-aes-0 (accessed on 1 March 2025).
  25. Ryandika, D.G.; Prabowo, W.A. Two-Stage Encryption for Strengthening Data Security in Web-Based Databases: AES-256 and RSA Integration. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE International Conference on Communication, Networks and Satellite (COMNETSAT), Malang, Indonesia, 23–25 November 2023; pp. 486–492. [Google Scholar]
  26. Pérez, J.; Gutiérrez, M. Proximity-based smart card authentication for vehicle access control. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2021, 70, 7563–7574. [Google Scholar]
  27. Mohammed, K.; Abdelhafid, M.; Kamal, K.; Ismail, N.; Ilias, A. Intelligent driver monitoring system: An Internet of Things-based system for tracking and identifying the driving behavior. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 2023, 84, 103704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Školc, G.; Markelj, B. Smart cars and information security. J. Crim. Justice Secur. 2018, 2, 218–236. [Google Scholar]
  29. Deichmann, J.; Klein, B.; Scherf, G.; Stützle, R. The Race for Cybersecurity: Protecting the Connected Car in the Era of New Regulation; McKinsey Company: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  30. ISO/SAE 21434:2021; Road Vehicles—Cybersecurity Engineering. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.
  31. Scalas, M.; Giacinto, G. Automotive cybersecurity: Foundations for next-generation vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2019 2nd International Conference on new Trends in Computing Sciences (ICTCS), Amman, Jordan, 9–11 October 2019; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  32. Busold, C.; Taha, A.; Wachsmann, C.; Dmitrienko, A.; Seudié, H.; Sobhani, M.; Sadeghi, A.R. Smart keys for cyber-cars: Secure smartphone-based NFC-enabled car immobilizer. In Proceedings of the third ACM conference on Data and application security and privacy, New York, NY, USA, 18–20 February 2013; pp. 233–242. [Google Scholar]
  33. European Road Transport Research Advisory Council (ERTRAC). Report on Authentication Measures and Fleet Safety; ERTRAC: Brussels, Belgium, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  34. Li, W.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, X. Automotive cybersecurity and smart card integration: A systematic review. J. Automot. Technol. 2022, 45, 245–260. [Google Scholar]
  35. Gurulian, I.; Shepherd, C.; Markantonakis, K.; Akram, R.N.; Mayes, K. When Theory and Reality Collide: Demystifying the Effectiveness of Ambient Sensing for NFC-based Proximity Detection by Applying Relay Attack Data. arXiv 2016, arXiv:1605.00425. [Google Scholar]
  36. Sánchez-García, J.; García-Campos, J.M.; Reina, D.G.; Toral, S.L.; Barrero, F. On-siteDriverID: A secure authentication scheme based on Spanish eID cards for vehicular ad hoc networks. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2016, 64, 50–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Amaxilatis, D.; Tselios, C.; Akrivopoulos, O.; Chatzigiannakis, I. On the design of a Fog computing-based, driving behaviour monitoring framework. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2010.09421. [Google Scholar]
  38. Wolf, M.; Weimerskirch, A.; Wollinger, T. State of the art: Embedding security in vehicles. EURASIP J. Embed. Syst. 2007, 2007, 74706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dodge, M.; Kitchin, R. The automatic management of drivers and driving spaces. Geoforum 2007, 38, 264–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Dimple, B.; Chary, M.V.; Reddy, J.N.; Dileep, A. Authenticated access control for vehicle ignition system by smart card and fingerprint technology. IOSR J. Electron. Commun. Eng. 2015, 10, 45–48. [Google Scholar]
  41. Economic and Social Council. Protection of Motor Vehicles Against Unauthorized Use: Proposal for Amendments to Regulation No. 116. ECE/TRANS/WP.29/GRSG/2010/8. 2010. Available online: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/684996?v=pdf (accessed on 1 March 2025).
  42. FMVSS 114. Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention. Available online: https://www.ntea.com/NTEA/Member_benefits/Technical_resources/FMVSSguide/FMVSS114.aspx (accessed on 1 March 2025).
  43. Haider, A.; Khan, A.H.; Denai, M. A Smart Wireless Car Ignition System for Vehicle Security. Advances in Automobile Engineering. Adv. Automob. Eng. 2017, 6, 1000169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ravi, K.S.; Varun, G.H.; Vamsi, T.; Pratyusha, P. RFID based security system. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Explor. Eng. 2013, 2, 132–134. [Google Scholar]
  45. Farooq, U.; ul Hasan, M.; Amar, M.; Hanif, A.; Asad, M.U. RFID based security and access control system. Int. J. Eng. Technol. 2014, 6, 309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ramkumar, M. Fingerprint based driving licensing authentication system using FPGA implementation. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Res. Technol. 2014, 3, 2006–2009. [Google Scholar]
  47. Ashwin, S.; Loganathan, S.; Kumar, S.S.; Sivakumar, P. Prototype of a fingerprint based licensing system for driving. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Information Communication and Embedded Systems (ICICES), Chennai, India, 21–22 February 2013; pp. 974–987. [Google Scholar]
  48. Dhomne, S.; Bulkunde, P.; Lohakare, S.; Ukey, A.; Gajbiye, S.; Deolekar, S.; Shambarkar, N. Smart Ignition System in Automobile Industries. IJIRT J. 2019, 5, 410–416. [Google Scholar]
  49. Ali, A.M.; Awad, H.M.; Abdalgader, I.K. Authenticated Access Control for Vehicle Ignition System by Driver’s License and Fingerprint Technology. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Computer, Control, Electrical, and Electronics Engineering (ICCCEEE), Khartoum, Sudan, 26 February–1 March 2021; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  50. Sushmitha, N.; Supriya, B.; Prajeeshan, R.A. Bio-metric automobile security. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Technol. Res. 2015, 4, 3550–3554. [Google Scholar]
  51. Zhou, Y.; Tang, X.; Zhang, Y. A Hybrid Encryption Algorithm Based on RSA and AES for Wireless Sensor Networks. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Smart Internet of Things (SmartIoT), Xi’an, China, 17–19 August 2018; pp. 136–141. [Google Scholar]
  52. Wu, Y.; Xiong, L.; Wang, C.; Xu, Y. Efficient Secure Mechanisms for In-Vehicle Ethernet in Autonomous Vehicles. Electronics 2024, 13, 3625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Yahaya, A.S.; Javaid, N.; Zeadally, S.; Farooq, H. Blockchain based optimized data storage with secure communication for Internet of Vehicles considering active, passive, and double spending attacks. Veh. Commun. 2022, 37, 100502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ometov, A.; Bezzateev, S.; Mäkitalo, N.; Andreev, S.; Mikkonen, T.; Koucheryavy, Y. Multi-factor authentication: A survey. Cryptography 2018, 2, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ometov, A.; Bezzateev, S. Multi-factor authentication: A survey and challenges in V2X applications. In Proceedings of the 2017 9th International Congress on Ultra Modern Telecommunications and Control Systems and Workshops (ICUMT), Munich, Germany, 6–8 November 2017; pp. 129–136. [Google Scholar]
  56. Burton, S.L. Advancing Cybersecurity: Strategic Insights Into Multifactor Authentication. Organ. Readiness Res. Secur. Manag. Decis. Mak. 2025, 8, 247–282. [Google Scholar]
  57. Zhang, K.; Ni, J.; Yang, K.; Liang, X.; Ren, J.; Shen, X. Security and Privacy in Smart City Applications: Challenges and Solutions. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2017, 55, 122–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kebande, V.R.; Awaysheh, F.M.; Ikuesan, R.A.; Alawadi, S.A.; Alshehri, M.D. A blockchain-based multi-factor authentication model for a cloud-enabled internet of vehicles. Sensors 2021, 21, 6018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Almadani, M.S.; Alotaibi, S.; Alsobhi, H.; Hussain, O.K.; Hussain, F.K. Blockchain-based multi-factor authentication: A systematic literature review. Internet Things 2023, 23, 100844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Khan, S.K.; Shiwakoti, N.; Stasinopoulos, P.; Chen, Y.; Warren, M. Cybersecurity Framework for Connected and Automated Vehicles: A Modeling Perspective. Transp. Policy 2025, 162, 47–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kifor, C.V.; Popescu, A. Automotive cybersecurity: A Survey on frameworks, standards, and testing and monitoring technologies. Sensors 2024, 24, 6139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Zhang, H.; Pan, Y.; Lu, Z.; Wang, J.; Liu, Z. A cyber security evaluation framework for in-vehicle electrical control units. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 149690–149706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Bushager, A.F. Smart Card Systems: Managing Risks and Modelling Security Protocols Using Systemc and Transaction Level Modelling. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  64. Bozdal, M.; Samie, M.; Aslam, S.; Jennions, I. Evaluation of can bus security challenges. Sensors 2020, 20, 2364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Schmittner, C.; Griessnig, G.; Ma, Z. Status of the Development of ISO/SAE 21434. In Proceedings of the Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement: 25th European Conference, EuroSPI 2018, Bilbao, Spain, 5–7 September 2018; Proceedings 25. Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 504–513. [Google Scholar]
  66. ISO 11898-1:2024; Road Vehicles—Controller Area Network (CAN)—Part 1: Data Link Layer and Physical Signalling. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2024.
  67. Benadjila, R.; Renard, M.; Elbaze, D.; Trébuchet, P. LEIA: The Lab Embedded ISO7816 Analyzer A Custom Smartcard Reader for the ChipWhisperer. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Information and Communications Technology Security, Rennes, France, 5–7 June 2019. [Google Scholar]
  68. Tiberti, W.; Civino, R.; Gavioli, N.; Pugliese, M.; Santucci, F. A Hybrid-Cryptography Engine for Securing Intra-Vehicle Communications. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 13024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. ISO/IEC 7816-4:2020; Identification cards—Integrated Circuit Cards—Part 4: Organization, Security and Commands for Interchange. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020.
  70. Tuohy, S.; Glavin, M.; Hughes, C.; Jones, E.; Trivedi, M.; Kilmartin, L. Intra-Vehicle Networks: A Review. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2015, 16, 534–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Abdelhalim, A.; Bailey, L.; Dalphy, E.; Raboy, K. Data Enforced: An Exploratory Impact Analysis of Automated Speed Enforcement in the District of Columbia. arXiv 2021, arXiv:2106.09933. [Google Scholar]
  72. ISO 16750-3:2023; Road vehicles—Environmental Conditions and Testing for Electrical and Electronic Equipment—Part 3: Mechanical Loads. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023.
  73. ISO 16750-4:2023; Road vehicles—Environmental Conditions and Testing for Electrical and Electronic Equipment—Part 4: Climatic Loads. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023.
  74. IEC 60068-2-6:2007; Environmental Testing—Part 2–6: Tests—Test Fc: Vibration (Sinusoidal). International Electrotechnical Commission: London, UK, 2007.
  75. Dukarski, J. Unsettled Legal Issues Facing Data in Autonomous, Connected, Electric, and Shared Vehicles; SAE Technical Paper No. EPR2021019; SAE International: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  76. Ahmad, U.; Han, M.; Jolfaei, A.; Jabbar, S.; Ibrar, M.; Erbad, A.; Song, H.H.; Alkhrijah, Y. A comprehensive survey and tutorial on smart vehicles: Emerging technologies, security issues, and solutions using machine learning. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2024, 25, 15314–15341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Weber, J.; Weber, J. Primary or Customer Relevant Complete Vehicle Characteristics. Automot. Dev. Process. Process. Success. Cust. Oriented Veh. Dev. 2009, 7, 107–286. [Google Scholar]
  78. AIS-140; Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)—Requirements for Public Transport Vehicle Operation. Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI): Pune, India, 2018.
  79. Dabaghchian, M.; Alipour-Fanid, A.; Zeng, K. Intelligent Policing Strategy for Traffic Violation Prevention. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1909.09291. [Google Scholar]
  80. Popović, V.M.; Damjanović, M.Z.; Blagojević, I.A.; Simović, S.S. Technical regulations and conditions for importing passenger vehicles on the territory of Southeast Europe. FME Trans. 2011, 39, 105–116. [Google Scholar]
  81. Balasundaram, E.; Nedunchezhian, C.; Arumugam, M.; Asaikannu, V. Recent Advances in Intelligent Transportation Systems in India: Analysis, Applications, Challenges, and Future Work. In Machine Intelligence, Big Data Analytics, and IoT in Image Processing: Practical Applications; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2023; pp. 323–339. [Google Scholar]
  82. Das, H.S.; Rahman, M.M.; Li, S.; Tan, C.W. Electric vehicles standards, charging infrastructure, and impact on grid integration: A technological review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 120, 109618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Zheng, J.; Wang, Y. Advanced Polymer Applications in Automotive Electronics. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2023, 140, 3456–3462. [Google Scholar]
  84. Kim, H.J.; Park, S. EMI Shielding in Automotive Electronics Using Nanocomposite Materials. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 2024, 212, 117338. [Google Scholar]
  85. Lee, S.; Cho, K. Advances in Transparent Conductive Films for Automotive Applications. Adv. Mater. Interfaces 2022, 9, 2200123. [Google Scholar]
  86. Patel, R.; Gupta, V. Thermal Management Solutions for Automotive Electronics. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 2023, 145, 987–995. [Google Scholar]
  87. Chen, Z.; Li, M. Encapsulation Techniques for Durable Automotive Electronics. IEEE Trans. Compon. Packag. Manuf. Technol. 2024, 14, 101–108. [Google Scholar]
  88. Smith, T.J.; Zhang, Y. Exploring the Potential of Graphene in Automotive Electronics. Carbon 2023, 201, 122–130. [Google Scholar]
  89. Kim, A.; Bogard, D.; Perlman, D.; Harrington, R. Review of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for Automated Vehicles: Identifying Potential Barriers and Challenges for the Certification of Automated Vehicles Using Existing FMVSS; No. DOT-VNTSC-OSTR-16-03; John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (US): Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  90. Rathore, R.S.; Hewage, C.; Kaiwartya, O.; Lloret, J. In-vehicle communication cyber security: Challenges and solutions. Sensors 2022, 22, 6679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Lee, T.Y.; Lin, I.A.; Liao, R.H. Design of a FlexRay/Ethernet Gateway and Security Mechanism for In-Vehicle Networks. Sensors 2020, 20, 641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Khan, J.; Lim, D.W.; Kim, Y.S. Intrusion Detection System CAN-Bus In-Vehicle Networks Based on the Statistical Characteristics of Attacks. Sensors 2023, 23, 3554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Bari, B.S.; Yelamarthi, K.; Ghafoor, S. Intrusion Detection in Vehicle Controller Area Network (CAN) Bus Using Machine Learning: A Comparative Performance Study. Sensors 2023, 23, 3610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Gajdzik, B.; Awdziej, M.; Jaciow, M.; Lipowska, I.; Lipowski, M.; Szojda, G.; Tkaczyk, J.; Wolniak, R.; Wolny, R.; Grebski, W.W. Encouraging Residents to Save Energy by Using Smart Transportation: Incorporating the Propensity to Save Energy into the UTAUT Model. Energies 2024, 17, 5341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Smart card reader system integrated with onboard display.
Figure 1. Smart card reader system integrated with onboard display.
Processes 13 00911 g001
Figure 2. Conceptual user interface for a smart card-based vehicle ignition system.
Figure 2. Conceptual user interface for a smart card-based vehicle ignition system.
Processes 13 00911 g002
Figure 3. A decisional sketch for the vehicle permission verification.
Figure 3. A decisional sketch for the vehicle permission verification.
Processes 13 00911 g003
Table 1. Estimates of non-compliance in vehicle regulations.
Table 1. Estimates of non-compliance in vehicle regulations.
RegionNon-Compliance with Property Tax (%)Non-Compliance with Insurance (%)Non-Compliance with Inspection (%)Expired Driver’s License (%)Age-Related
Ineligibility (%)
Italy15%10%20%8%5%
Europe12%8%18%7%4%
Worldwide20%15%25%10%6%
Table 2. System features and applications [47,48,49,50,51].
Table 2. System features and applications [47,48,49,50,51].
FeatureDescriptionCurrent ApplicationsPotential Benefits
Smart Card ReaderReads driver credentials and verifies compliance in real timeSecure fleet management, luxury carsEnhanced compliance and security
Connection to ECUInterfaces with the vehicle’s electronic control unit for engine managementHigh-end vehicles, concept modelsSeamless vehicle operation control
RFID/Proximity CardsEnables wireless authentication for added convenienceProximity-based ignition systemsDual-layer security and user-friendliness
Biometric Smart CardsIncorporates fingerprint or facial recognition for driver verificationEmerging prototypesAdvanced security and personalized access
Table 3. Security features and technologies.
Table 3. Security features and technologies.
FeatureDescriptionBenefitsChallenges
AES-256/RSA EncryptionEncrypts data exchanges between smart card and ECUPrevents interception and data breachesComputational overhead in real-time systems
Multifactor AuthenticationCombines smart card with biometric verificationDual-layer security and enhanced reliabilityHigher implementation costs and complexity
Blockchain TechnologyDecentralized verification using immutable ledgersReduces tampering risks and ensures transparencyLimited adoption and scalability concerns
Cybersecurity FrameworksEstablishes standardized protocols for secure implementationStreamlined deployment and user confidenceRequires global collaboration and regulation
Table 4. Compatibility features and costs.
Table 4. Compatibility features and costs.
FeatureDescriptionBenefitsEstimated Cost per Vehicle
CAN Bus IntegrationEnsures smart card reader communicates effectively with vehicle systemsReliable performance and no latencyUSD 100–300
ISO 7816 ProtocolStandardized communication for smart cardsSecure and efficient data exchangeIncluded in implementation cost
ISO 21434 ProtocolCybersecurity standards for vehicle systemsProtection against unauthorized accessUSD 50–100
Compatibility Testing FrameworkVerifies seamless operation across vehicle modelsReduced errors and increased reliabilityUSD 50–100
Table 5. Regulatory comparisons and challenges [79,80,81,82].
Table 5. Regulatory comparisons and challenges [79,80,81,82].
RegionKey RegulationApplicability to Smart CardsChallenges
European UnionUNECE Regulation No. 116Mandates anti-theft standardsStringent compliance testing and certification
United StatesFMVSS (e.g., FMVSS 114)General theft prevention guidelinesLack of explicit smart card-specific standards
JapanJASO StandardsSupports next-gen vehicle technologiesBalancing innovation with traditional regulatory frameworks
ChinaGB StandardsIncludes digital security requirementsAdapting to evolving data privacy laws
IndiaAIS Standards (e.g., AIS-140)Emphasizes anti-theft in public transportLimited specificity for private vehicles
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Vitiello, V.; Benazzi, A.; Trucillo, P. Smart Card-Based Vehicle Ignition Systems: Security, Regulatory Compliance, Drug and Impairment Detection, Through Advanced Materials and Authentication Technologies. Processes 2025, 13, 911. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13030911

AMA Style

Vitiello V, Benazzi A, Trucillo P. Smart Card-Based Vehicle Ignition Systems: Security, Regulatory Compliance, Drug and Impairment Detection, Through Advanced Materials and Authentication Technologies. Processes. 2025; 13(3):911. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13030911

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vitiello, Vincenzo, Alessandro Benazzi, and Paolo Trucillo. 2025. "Smart Card-Based Vehicle Ignition Systems: Security, Regulatory Compliance, Drug and Impairment Detection, Through Advanced Materials and Authentication Technologies" Processes 13, no. 3: 911. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13030911

APA Style

Vitiello, V., Benazzi, A., & Trucillo, P. (2025). Smart Card-Based Vehicle Ignition Systems: Security, Regulatory Compliance, Drug and Impairment Detection, Through Advanced Materials and Authentication Technologies. Processes, 13(3), 911. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13030911

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop