6 ms·

I doubt you'd say that if you owned one of the affected VWs.

by Encosia 11y ago

LoSboccacc 11y ago
but they got the key, so you can safely assume everybody else has or could. publishing it is the kind of pressure the manufacturer need from the public, otherwise people will do the same reasoning, kicking into 'secret = safe' mode even when it's completely pwnd - heck it's not even theoretical there is a paper on it with the extracted keys. the fact you weren't affected is just because stealing a car is not the hardest part of the ordeal.
jessaustin 11y ago
One might, if one had purchased a VW during the years this paper was censored.
- ajross 11y ago
  Exactly. So how many vulnerable cars are on the roads of the world right now because the UK High Court wanted to "protect consumers". It seems insane. A temporary injunction, sure. But two years (actually three since the original vulnerability report) isn't remotely acceptable. And getting back to the original point: I'd want to see some coverage of how this disaster happened in the UK courts.
- genericuser 11y ago
  Except that VW at somepoint quit using the transponder in question because of this issue so new cars made are no longer susceptible.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    Not everyone buys only new cars. Besides, in a world in which research was not censored, do you really expect that VW would have been slower to fix the issue?
    - genericuser 11y ago
      No but I don't think they would of been faster either was my point. Hence, to answer to the question posed "So how many vulnerable cars are on the roads of the world right now because the UK High Court wanted to "protect consumers"" I would answer 'possibly zero, BECAUSE of that' and once they are manufactured and sold they exist regardless of the owner, till they are destroyed.
      - jessaustin 11y ago
        I never posed that question. (hint: sibling did) I merely countered the plight of old VW owners with that of new VW owners.
josu 11y ago
That's the problem, that the judges making the decisions usually don't have skin in the game.

I doubt you'd say that if you owned one of the affected VWs.

by Encosia 11y ago

I doubt you'd say that if you owned one of the affected VWs.

but they got the key, so you can safely assume everybody else has or could. publishing it is the kind of pressure the manufacturer need from the public, otherwise people will do the same reasoning, kicking into 'secret = safe' mode even when it's completely pwnd - heck it's not even theoretical there is a paper on it with the extracted keys. the fact you weren't affected is just because stealing a car is not the hardest part of the ordeal.

jessaustin 11y ago

One might, if one had purchased a VW during the years this paper was censored.

ajross 11y ago
Exactly. So how many vulnerable cars are on the roads of the world right now because the UK High Court wanted to "protect consumers". It seems insane. A temporary injunction, sure. But two years (actually three since the original vulnerability report) isn't remotely acceptable. And getting back to the original point: I'd want to see some coverage of how this disaster happened in the UK courts.
genericuser 11y ago
Except that VW at somepoint quit using the transponder in question because of this issue so new cars made are no longer susceptible.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  Not everyone buys only new cars. Besides, in a world in which research was not censored, do you really expect that VW would have been slower to fix the issue?
  - genericuser 11y ago
    No but I don't think they would of been faster either was my point. Hence, to answer to the question posed "So how many vulnerable cars are on the roads of the world right now because the UK High Court wanted to "protect consumers"" I would answer 'possibly zero, BECAUSE of that' and once they are manufactured and sold they exist regardless of the owner, till they are destroyed.
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      I never posed that question. (hint: sibling did) I merely countered the plight of old VW owners with that of new VW owners.

josu 11y ago

That's the problem, that the judges making the decisions usually don't have skin in the game.