- cross-posted to:
- cybersecurity@sh.itjust.works
- cross-posted to:
- cybersecurity@sh.itjust.works
You must log in or # to comment.
Some white hat hackers took control of a Jeep Grand Cherokee’s brakes and throttle remotely, like 8 years ago. The only reason to have WiFi or cell service on a vehicle is to let the government kill you lol
Edit: it was ELEVEN years ago
https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/
There was also an investigative reporter driving a Mercedes who died in an odd accident in SoCal in and around then. It was suspicious, but swept away quickly in the news. I remember believing that he was murdered.
Edit: It was Michael Hastings. He had discredited General McChrystal which resulted in his resignation (The Runaway General). “His last story, “Why Democrats Love to Spy On Americans”, was published by BuzzFeed on June 7, 2013.” I love how Wikipedia mentions that his body tested positive for marijuana and methamphetamine, but leaves out that the coroner stated that it did not contribute to the crash. And of course the LAPD stating there was no foul play. Case closed!
I think a similar thing happened to an investigative journalist in DC
Oh yea, I loved that white paper that came out for that because it gave me what I needed to “jailbreak” my old Jeep’s u connect and mod the shit out of it lol
Remote hacking infotainment stuff is one thing, but if actual vehicle controls aren’t air-gapped, someone seriously fucked up. All vehicle controls should be strictly local.
They should be, of course- but in more than one case they are not
I think many vehicles still use the old CAN bus that just wasn’t setup with external connectivity in mind. It’s well known that even premium brands often reuse all the same components.
I’ve heard that Tesla were the first to replace this with something closer to a modern network in the cybertruck, of all things.
Hey not fair eleven years ago was like 2005
Is anyone actually surprised by this? It’s one of those things that any semi-competent programmer could have told you would be the case. The study just formalizes it and adds specifics.
if it’s a computer, it can be hacked
if it’s connected to the internet, it doubly can be hacked!
If it can be physically connected to, oh boy…
Laughs in old, primitive, disconnected, paid for car
I’m sure that soon it will be illegal to drive a car that isn’t connected.
Only drug dealers and child predators have a need for an untracked car /s
I mean, yeah? You give anything a connection to a global network with billions of people, and there will always be a chance for it to be exploited. Hell, even my personal OpenVPN instance for remotely accessing my home servers has to fend off attacks.
This is why my next vehicle will be a slate truck. Zero internet connectivity by default, and updates can be done via USB-C from a phone (which can be vetted as needed).
The whole internet of things was a mistake. I say that as one of the biggest tech enthusiasts I know.
Secure software is mathematically possible, but secure engineering is mathematically improbable.
Internet of Things is a terrible no good idea, but Intranet of Things has some potential. Entirely local mesh networks like Zigbee and Z-wave solve most of your problems, doubly so if you properly confine their controllers into their own non Internet routable subnets.
It’s honestly my biggest complaint with the Matter standard, it has Internet bridging baked into the design while the prior standards made that completely optional.
Parts of Iot are great, but not the whole “smart home sending multiple video and microphone feeds to Amazon/Google/Facebook” thing.
The ability to set up remote sensors on critical infrastructure to give early alerts is a benefit.
And it can be done without a cloud connection.
Yes, that’s a great way to put it
I truly don’t understand why the infotainment systems in vehicles aren’t air-gapped from the systems that run the vehicle.
Because the infotainment panel is also used to manage features in the car that need to be controlled by the vehicles main controller, e.g. ESC enable/disable, auto start/stop of the engine, park assist systems etc.
It is not a necessary design element of a car to have a single touchscreen to control the car. It is a willful bad choice.
It is entirely possibly to have a car who’s main driving components are air gapped from the windows, ac, radio, locks, etc. It just isn’t done for a lot of modern cars.
I’m not saying it is necessary, I’m just explaining why it is not air gapped.
But if you were to have a physical button for every single thing you can adjust in modern cars, you’d literally need over 100 buttons which is absolutely insanely bad design.
Edit: not to mention that most of these settings can’t be clearly identified with small simple pictograms. All in all it would make a confusing and horrible mess of the interior.
An infotainment screen can be separate from the thing that handles driving without a need to replace everything with physical buttons. It’s just a matter of having 2 computers (and thus extra cost) that are not connected. The driving computer can handle things like ECS, ABS, acceleration, braking, locking, unlocking, headlights, turn signals, and of course managing the motor components all while being disconnected from the Internet. The cabin computer can handle everything else and appear to the user the same as it does today. You can even connect the cabin computer to the Internet without risk of dying if you want the ability to remotely heat or cool the cabin or want an auto emergency response call in cases of a crash.
You don’t need an individual control for all the things that happen in a car, you just need intelligent, security aware decisions to be made when deciding what is critical for driving or safety and what is just there for comfort.
Uh… cars existed for decades without needing hundreds of buttons everywhere. Modern cars are still made without Internet connected infotainment systems.
Your argument doesn’t hold water.
Yes and for the past few decades the features of cars has exploded giving the driver a lot of options for configuration. Go through the car settings menu on any new car that isn’t just the cheapest scraped version, there’s dozens upon dozens of options that you can configure. Without a screen (not necessarily touch) to manage this, it would be button-hell where you couldn’t find anything.
My infotainment system doesn’t control any features of my car besides the speakers. Everything is either buttons, or is configured via dashboard, but even then that’s like 5 options that could definitely be buttons.
I guess you might believe that it’s required if your only experience with automobiles is a Tesla.
My experience is from VW/Skoda, Hyundai and volvo…the volvo was by far the worst and an absolute button-hell, it has insanely bad interior design.
I 100% prefer managing settings on a screen where I can get a proper detailed layout and logic representation of functional structure.
The real reason it’s not air-gapped is because it makes the package count lower, and manufacturers don’t give a shit about owners’ privacy or security.
But if you were to have a physical button for every single thing you can adjust in modern cars, you’d literally need over 100 buttons which is absolutely insanely bad design.
How many things are adjustable in modern cars that are actually necessary to adjust? Having that many options is just piss-poor user-interface design. The only things that really need buttons and knobs are the parameters that have to be twiddled with while the car is running. The rest is offline config that could be done just fine with a touchscreen or a mobile app without causing driver distraction and getting people killed. And none of that has anything to do with physically separate data paths for ancillary functions versus critical controls.
So use a different panel/controls for that. I should not be able to start a car from a USB port or Bluetooth EVER, no matter how locked down the system is. Nothing with that sort of connectivity should come anywhere near the engine.
Yes they could do that, they choose not to probably to save cost. I’m just explaining to you why it is that way in cars available, not that it can only be that way.
No fucking shit
WHAT!!???!!
The only secure computer is the one you’re holding the power cord you just yanked out of the back of it, and even then it’s only temporarily secure.
From what I’ve been reading, not only is this the least of what hackers can do, but it’s with any new vehicles. The CIA developed all sorts of hacking tools for cars I hear tell, that were revealed in the snowden leaks, and that was 15 years ago, that they can take control of the gas, brakes, and steering regardless of your controlls in the vehicle.
It’s not just academic either, 60 minutes a few years ago got a new vehicle in a parking lot and paid a hacker to take control in a parking lot and he got it to disregard their steering and braking and gas pedal.
There are a couple of suspicious deaths people think are from hacked vehicles causing accidents, Guiffre in Australia is one.
A car is pretty much the last thing you’d want to have a network connection. I’d sooner hook up my refrigerator and let it send analytics data to Frigidaire.
I seriously need a GrapheneMobile
Egads! Evildoers?! On MY Internet??? But how am I supposed to know when my car’s seats are filled with too many farts if it doesn’t have the potential to send a tweet??
anything connected will be hacked eventually
Still… after more than a decade where some Wired article published the exact same fucking statement about being able to break a moving vehicle and take control of steering. This is old news.
