4 ms·

Its only a matter of time before over the air car hijacking becomes a real problem. I think I prefer my car not be wirelessly susceptible.

by kyle_t 13y ago

greenyoda 13y ago
Yeah, if you can program a car to not catch fire, it should also be possible to program a car to catch fire.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  You could do all sorts of nasty things depending on the car. With a gasoline car, you could melt the engine if the fuel maps are accessible via OTA.
  - Ygg2 13y ago
    You can probably melt the battery in Tesla. Batteries are heated, right? Add stress to batter, turn heaters on. Watch battery melt and/or explode. You can already do similar attack on laptops.
BlackDeath3 13y ago
I think we're already there: http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/07/24/hackers-reveal-nasty-new-car-attacks-with-me-behind-the-wheel-video/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/07/24/hackers...
erikpukinskis 13y ago
That seems crazy to me. Over the air updates will continually make your car safer. You're basically arguing that Windows Update is bad because someone could MITM it to inject an exploit into your computer. Sure, that's possible, but it's much more likely that the delay between availability and installation of an exploit will caused you to be owned.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  No, he's arguing that a machine that consumes Windows Update is by very nature less secure than a machine with no network connection. Not because Windows Update is insecure, but because you've added an attack vector (network) and the software can be modified (e.g. EEPROM instead of ROM like in 80's cars). More difficult to permanently PWN a ROM, donchaknow.
  - erikpukinskis 13y ago
    You missed my metaphor. The car is dangerous whether or not it has an internet connection, by virtue of it being a highly flammable thing that you sit in while it moves 70 miles per hour. Some of the over the air updates improve the safety of the car during driving.

Its only a matter of time before over the air car hijacking becomes a real problem. I think I prefer my car not be wirelessly susceptible.

by kyle_t 13y ago

Its only a matter of time before over the air car hijacking becomes a real problem. I think I prefer my car not be wirelessly susceptible.

greenyoda 13y ago

Yeah, if you can program a car to not catch fire, it should also be possible to program a car to catch fire.

sliverstorm 13y ago
You could do all sorts of nasty things depending on the car. With a gasoline car, you could melt the engine if the fuel maps are accessible via OTA.
- Ygg2 13y ago
  You can probably melt the battery in Tesla. Batteries are heated, right? Add stress to batter, turn heaters on. Watch battery melt and/or explode. You can already do similar attack on laptops.

BlackDeath3 13y ago

I think we're already there: http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/07/24/hackers-reveal-nasty-new-car-attacks-with-me-behind-the-wheel-video/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/07/24/hackers...

erikpukinskis 13y ago

That seems crazy to me. Over the air updates will continually make your car safer. You're basically arguing that Windows Update is bad because someone could MITM it to inject an exploit into your computer. Sure, that's possible, but it's much more likely that the delay between availability and installation of an exploit will caused you to be owned.

sliverstorm 13y ago
No, he's arguing that a machine that consumes Windows Update is by very nature less secure than a machine with no network connection. Not because Windows Update is insecure, but because you've added an attack vector (network) and the software can be modified (e.g. EEPROM instead of ROM like in 80's cars). More difficult to permanently PWN a ROM, donchaknow.
- erikpukinskis 13y ago
  You missed my metaphor. The car is dangerous whether or not it has an internet connection, by virtue of it being a highly flammable thing that you sit in while it moves 70 miles per hour. Some of the over the air updates improve the safety of the car during driving.